Phrase-ntarkers 4.

(6) Due belle ragazz(' pirrlano spesso con Gino )re-

Two pretty girls talk often wrth Gino 4 rnd
PLURAL PLURAL PLURAL INV INV SING
(lNv:'invariable'; slNc :'singular') Noun Phrases
(7) In English, Adjectives, Nouns, and Prepositions can be modified by a//(in the sense
of 'completely'). but not Verbs:

(7) (a) I'm [all wet] (AP) ons

(b) It's lall gold] (NP)
t'
(c) I'm fall in] (PP)
(d) *l've
[all finished] (VP)
{.1
Oveniew
Most of our discussion irr the previous tuo chapters has been con-
cernecl r'uith prorrrling enrpirical suhstantiatiorr fbr the clairn that scntences are
hrcrarchicalll structurccl (r-rt ol constitLrents belonsirrg to a restricted lperhaps ;of
univcrsal) set ol ((r/(?()r'i',r. and rijth ct-rnsidering the nature of categories.
Implicitlr'. rve postulated a ruo-/o'l/ Theory of Categorics: that is to say. we
tacitlv assunrr-d thal tlrt-r'c are t$'o /r.r't'/s ol- categorres in natural language.
nitntelv
the
(|) (i) t(trtl-l('t 'l <'ol(',(()ri('.r. e.g.
N : Noun: V: Ve rh: A -. Adiective: P - Preposition; .ltts
.ADV - Advcrb: M : N'lodal: D: Detenniner. e tc. rle-
tiit l,ltr,r:r'-ltv'ladl('.g/,/'i(.\.c.t. AP
NP: Noun Phrase: VP: Verb Phrase: AP: Adjectival Phrase: rWS
PP: Prc-positional Phrase: ADVP: Adverhial Phrase, etc. 88)
In this chapter anrl the next, however. we are going to argue that our existing
Theorl of Categories should be extended to include a third type cif category
rnternrediilte bc'tueen w'ord-level arrd phrase-level categories. That is to say.
we are eoing to argue in favour of positrng that there are nominal constituents
larger than the Noun hut srlaller than a full Noun Phrase. verbal constituents
larger than the Verb but snraller than a full Verb Phrase. adjectival constitu-
ents largc'r than the Adjective but snraller than a fuli Adjectival Phrase . . . and
so on. We'll beitirr our discussion in this chapter by looking at the internal
structure ot'Noun Phrases: in the ncrt chapter, we shall go olt to look at the
svnla\ (rl'othr-r tvpr's of Phrlse.

1.2 Small nominal phrases

Let's bcein our storv bv introducing the hero - namely, the fic-
tional chlracter dcsigrrated in (l) below:
(l) thc- king of'England

167
166 I3
N'oun Phrttses Sarttll nonrinul phrases 4.2

There can surely be little doubt that the overall sequence in (l) is a Noun oJ Englundl has the struclure (9) belorv:
Phrase: for example, like other NPs. it can take the genitive 's inllection. as in:
(e)
/-
,- --NP - -\ -=-
(i) the king oJ Englurul's crown ,-
U-
I
=\
,rl. N""''
_,/
=\ ,r.
Likewise, there seems to be plenty ol'cvidence that the sequence [o.l Englund]is | ./' England\
/of
a PP constituent in (2). Alter all. it e,an be coordinated with rnother similar PP Nrng
1: eTlphrase). as in:
I have not attached any specific categor)' label to lhe conslituertt fking o.l
(4) the king [pp oJ Engluntlj .rnd [pp ttl the Empiref Engtantll here. since Wells gires no label lbr it. But let's speculate on what our
mysrery constituent (desrgnatetl b1''l in (91above) might be.
It carr also tunction as the'shared constituent'in cases t'tf shured ((tnstituent Well. since it's a phrase containins the Noun A'r7lg. an obvious suggestion is
coordination. as in'. that the sequencc kirrg r,tl Englund is just ilnc)ther Noun Phrase. ln other words,
we rnight assunlc that [lre'king ol Englund) has thc skeletal structure (101
(5) He is the king. and she is the queen, [pp Lt,l Engltrul] below

And it can l-unclion as a sentente.lt'ugnrcnt ln an ilpprL)prlilte contc-\t: cl ( r0) *t.--'-.-.......t,r...-

(6) seEAKER ,r: Was he the king ol'France'l

D-,,'--
sPEAKER ir: I\o. lpp ol Ettglunl] ,i. '--'1j*,sotE"err"i-------
Moreover. it c:an be preposed, c'.g. in questions:
But this seerns tLr be wrong. fbl sereriil rcasolts. Ferr one thing. the'small
(7\ nonrinal phrase [Aing ol Englund) does not hare the same tjistribution as a
[pp Ol u'lrich tountr.r:l was he thc king'l
'tulf ' Noun Phrase such as [rlre Airrg o/ Englund). as we see from (l l) belorv:
And it can be replaced (in a somervhat archaic style) b1 thc prti-PP thereof'.c[.
(l I) (a) )I-he king ol Engkutd\opened
Parliament
(E) He dwelled in England. and wls the king tltert'Ltl l'or man)'it year \* King ,4 Englund I
-fhey
(b) crorvned lrhe king ttl Lnglunll yesterday
The obvious conclusion to draw is thus that there is ovenvhelming evidence l.* king tt-f Englund J

rhat [o.l Englorrl] is a PP constituent ot'the overall Noun Phrase [tfte king oJ (c) Parliitment grants little po\rer to \rlrc Aing ol Ettglundl
Englandl. \* kitt-g t,f EnglutkJ t
But uhat is the inrrnediutc cttnstituettt struclurc ol'thc rvhole Noun Phrase?
Secondl-r-,it'[tnrg ol Englundl were a Noun Phrase. then it *ould nleall that
In his influential 'lmmediate Constituents' article. Rulon Wells argued (1947
Determiners like rlrt, rvould be analyscd as premodil'vtng full Nourr Phrases:
lle57, p. l88l):
fbr, a structure such as (10) above *'ould need to be generated b1 a Phrase
that the ICs [:inrmediate cLrnstituents] of' rir. Airrg o.l Engltuul Struclure Rule such as ( ll) belou:
opened I'urliuntt'trtrre rlrs Ailg tt/ England tnd Ltpenad Porliunrenl, (I]) NP-D NP
that thosc' of the firlmer are rlrc and king o.f Engluruland those of
the latter are opeil.'d itnd Purliunren I, and that king o./ Englurul is that the slmbol 'NP'occurs on both the lefthand
But rule ( ll) is recrrr-illt'(irr
divided irtto lirrg and ttl Englund. and the righthand side of'the arrow). No*. this trre'ans that the rule ivill gener-
ate NPs ccrltaining nru!tiple Delerntiner.y (in lirct, NPs c6ntaining indefinitely
What is of interest to us here is Wells' implicit clairn that the phrase lthe king many Determiners). To see this. consider what hrrppens when we apply rule

168 I69
Noun Phrases Snnll nonrinal phrases 4.2

( I2): it will generate the structure ( ll) below: because a is indefinite and r/rc is definite. so that we have a contradiction of
some sort. And we might argue rhat rf multiple Deterntiner sequences result in
(13)
sonre fornr ol'semantic anomaly. then there's nothing ^s.t,rtactitall.t' wrong with
D-,----""t\*, them: i.e. we might argue thal such sequences are grammatical. but seman-
tically ill-lbrrned. Ilthis is so. then there's no reason to prevent stut/rtclic rules
But rule (I 2) can now re-apply to the structure (I 3), to expand the NP node at
like (ll) from generating such sequences. since the task ofsyntactic rules is to
the bottom olthe tree in (l-l) into another tD NP] sequence. resulting in the tl nt (
gc' n e ra t e .r.t' n t u c t i < a I l.t' n' c I l -.1 it r nt c s t Iu re s.
structure ( l4) below:
But the question rs whether it is plausible to claim that all multiple Deter-
(t4) ,,---NP- rniner sequences in English can be ruled out as ill-formed on semantic
D-" grounds. As ive havc' already suggested. this is plausible enough lor examples
"t--.-..-....--..-*, such as ( I 6) (a) - (d) above. But it could surely not be said that Phrases such as
D- ( l6) (e) '- (g) are semanticallv ill-forrned. Why not?

And (14) also conrains an NP node at the bottom of the tree which can like- Well, lbr one thing. ungramntatical Deterniner * Po.r.re.r.rlvc sequences such
wise be expanded into a [D NP] sequence by re-application of rule (12)' as those in ( l6) (e) - (g) have perlectly grammatical paraphrases in English. as
thereby deriving the structure ( l 5) below: we see from the following paradigm:

(I 5) 1 (a)
l7) *c ll.r' bortk

D'--"'\ )"0-__
(b) rr bttok o/ ntirlc

{ l8) (at
*I/tt.r t'ottl tit-
D" -*\
(b) thi.s tie ol .r'ours
D''''' -NP
( l9)(a) *sttnrc vour friends
And it should be obvious to you by now rhat we can go on recurslvely (b) .r'orrrr, friends ol lours
(:repeatedly) re-applying the same rule to produce an NP structure contain- (c) sotttt, ttf .t'r::ur lriends
ing not just three Determiners (as in ( I 5) above), but four. five. six . . . in fact a
potentially infi ni te number.
Now. if rnultiple Determirter sequences are simply nteaningless. then we
,well. what's wrong with that?'you rnight ask. The problem is that multiple rvouldn't expect to find arr alternative gramrnatical way of expressing the same
nreaning in English: and 1'et examples such as ( l 7) - ( 19) show that we can in-
Determiner sequences are ill-formed in English. as we see lrom the impossi-
deed firrd gramrnatical ways of expressing the relevant concept. The lact that
bility of NPs such as those in (16) below (each of which contains a sequence of
just two Determiners): the ill-formed Noun Phrases in the (a) examples in (17)-(19) above have per-
lectly granrnratical syrronymous counterparts in the (b) sentences suggests that
(16) (a) *[g the][p rlre] king of England the nature of the ill-formedness in the (a) examples is.slnlaclic ralher than
(b) *[p the] [p tfirs] king of England .\('tn0nl ic.
(c) *[p o] [o rhelking of England A second argument for analysing the ill-lormedness olmultiple Determiner
(d) *{p ourl [p,r,aur1 king of England sequences in English as s_t'ntuc'tic is that many such sequences which are ill-
(e) *[p rhe][p our] king ofEngland forrned in English are rvell-lbrmed in other languages. For example.
(l) *[D on]
[p our] king ofEngland Detenttincr * Por.sr'.ssilc sequences have grammatical counterparts in
(C) 'lg rharl [p our] king of England langr.rages such as Italian. Spanish" and Romanian as the lollowing examples
show:
Olcourse, it may well be true that part of the reason why somc of the Phrases
in (16) are ill-formed is.sentantit' in nature. And indeed. this rnight be argued (20)(a) un nrio libro Italian]
to be the case in (16) (a) - (d); for example (16)(c) might be said to be odd a my book ('a book olrrine')

t70 t7l
 Snrttll nttninul Phrases 4'2
Nowr Plrases
ln thc ,r,rre,rir.Lr! sulterstriltt notation. N0 corresponds to the simple category
(b) e'.rtt.s ideas rrr.r'a.s
[Spanishl
and Nr has no counter-
those ideas yours ('tl-rose ideas ol'yours') N of our earlier sYstem in (ll. Nr corresponds to NP'
(c) cArted f., IRomanian] part at all in our original sYstem'
(but entirely equiva-
book + the your ( : book the your:'your book') At this point. however- we should mention two rival
notuti\tt. one is the har ttotulion
lent) notationul alternatrves to Harris' nuntber
Norv.ifnrultipteDeterminerSecluencesw'eresemanticallyanomalcrus.one 'Remarks on Nominalisation' paper; and the
introduce<J in Chomsky-s ( 1970)
woulcl expect synon)'mous sequences to be equally lttrontalous in
other
secclrrdistheprtnrcn()|ulionused(tbrexample)inaninlluentialstudyof
the ill-tbrmedness of mul-
languages: the lact thlt they are not suggests that
Phrase Structure by Jlckendoff 977a)' The three systems are notational vari-
(I

in English is s.t'rt/atlt, rilther thirn J('rt,clrlllt ln the same thing)' and the corres-
tiple Determimer sequences irnts oleach other (i.e. difl'erent wuys of saying
Englundl. the
nature (rhouglr in the case ot' NPs such as ( l6) (c) lu the king o,/ pondences between the three can be summarised as
in (22) below:
ill-tormedness may be both syntactic lnd semantic). ln other words. it seems
(22\ NolATloN BAR NorATtoN PRIME NorATloN
NUNTBER
likelythat.multipleDeterminer'sequencesareruledoutinEnglishbysomc N N
N0 (N-zero)
syntactic principle, not by semantic considerations alone And the
obviotts
in English rnodity a Nr (N-one) _- N (N-bar) N' (N-prtme)
principle to invoke is one to the efl'ect that Determiners
Nr (N-two) N (N-double-bar) N" (N-double-prime)
typeo|nonrinirlphraservhichissrnallertlranlrfullNounPhrase.though
Thus. the skeletal structure ol'ltfu king tl f'ngluntll could
be represented in
larger than a single Noun.
as in (23) below:
overall. thr'n. it would seem likely thlt our lnysterl- collstituent (indicated exactly equiralenr lashion in each ol'the three systems
N'
by.'l') in (9) above is an 'intermediate' type ol- nominal phrase. larger than (ll) (a) [51: thc- [N' [N, king] ol-Englandl l
but smaller than NP. But what label can we attach to it'l well. l'm aliaid
that
(b) tfi the tp [51 king] o1'Englandl l
our existing inventory ol categories summarised in (l ) abcrve simply doesn't (c) [p" the [N' [N kinglof England]l
provide us with enough category labels to go round For' ( I ) recognises onll
a con- CiventhatthesethreenotationirlSystemsareentirelyequivalent.itisnotsur.
two types of nominal constituent. narnely N and NP: it has no llrbel fbr Jackendoffs
.intermediate' between the two. So. rve need a rathcr more sophisti- prising to hnd that they irre used interchangeably: for example'
stituent (it culled .tslnttr.t). but uses
(lg7-lalbook uses the bar notttion in its ritle is
cated set of category labels. But where can wc tind thern'l
the prime notation throughout the rest ofthe book!
Fortunately.ZelligHarris.(1951)Strui'lrtru|Linquisticspror,idesuswitha word-processor'
he calls'raised For typographical reasons (ii you use a tvpewritcr or a
simple answer. Harris (ibid.. p. 166) suggests ir system ot'what prime-system [N'
expitnsiolls of a giren head con- you'll understantl what they ure!), we'll hencetbrth use the
numbers.to label successively lirrger pltrasal
N..N.]inourtrcediagrams.though(somewhatschizophrenically!)we.llre|er
stituent.Adaptinghisnunrcrit.ulslq)ers(.ril)!systeminmirrorways(e.g.Harrrs
we rnight then totherelevantconstltuentsasN,N-bar'andN-double-bar'Believeitornot'
starts counting at'1" but we'rc going to slart counting at'0'!), constituent structure of
in thc following this is standard practrce! civen these conventions. the
resolve the problem posed by the phrase lthe king t;.1 Englund) kirtg o.l'Englanttl will now be represented in the
our (in)lamous phrase lthe
way.WemightarguethattheNounkllrgisanN0.thatthe'small.nomilral I
hence an N ' manner outlined in (24) below:
phrase [krirg oJ Englanttlis a single phrasal expansion of kirrg and
of the N"
and that the lull NP [r/re king ol Englanci] is a double phrasal expansion ( 141
--
head Noun klng. and hence an N:' Civen this notation' (2) would have the D'tttt
" -=-
structure (21 ) below: ,,1.
,r's N -
oo

(2t) -'i- -'::--18};;--=-

D----nt->N,. And we'll say that krng is an N, [kirg oJ'Engtandlis
an N-bar' andlthe king o'l

,i. Y/ )to=- Englanrl)is an N-double-bar (hence also

ol
an NP'
P)'
since we earlier said that N"

"/- England--
I
corresponds to the traditional category N
krng of
l'73
t72
,Youn Phruses
4.3 Evidence for N-bar
Having managed to disentanglc ourselves lrom the notational
knots we were tied up in, rl'e can now go on to ask ourselves what evidence
there is that Wells was right to assume that an NP such aslthe king o.l Englandl
contains the'srnall'nominal phlasc'(r.e. what we are calling an N-bar) fking o.l
England) as onc ol its inrrnediate constituenIs. In this connecti()n. it is interest-
ing to consider the arguments w'hich Wells himself put forward in support ol'
his own analysis (though it should be borne in mind that Wells was writing in
a different era. and within a different theoretical framework), One such argu-
ment which he adduces ( 1957. p. 192) is a distrihutional one to the cffect that
fking of Englarrrl] must be a constituent br-cause it can occur as an independent
unit in other tvpes of sentence-structure, as in Wells' example:
l.)Sl
He becanre lkin.q of'Englandl
A second argument ivhich he puts lorward (ibid.. p. l9l)is that such an analy-
sis will enable us to capture the structural parallelism between the two phrases
in (26; below:
(26) (a) the IErgli.r/r tirg]
(b) the [An.q ol England)
Wells assumes (though does not argue) that the bracketed sequence lEngli.sh
king] is a constituc-nt in (16) (a). and argues that a parallel anal-v-sis of (16) (b)
along the lines of (24) above would be 'the best analysis of that phrase'
because'it harmonizes with other analyses' (i.e. with his analysis of phrases
like [rfte Engli.slt A-r)rg]). He is implicitly invoking a principle of maximising
strucIuraI stnunelr')' between related constructtons.
While there are potential pitfalls in Wells' argumentation, other independ-
ent evidence can be adduced in supporl ofhis analysis. For example, a further
argument in support of the key claim that the sequence lking o.f Englarrrl] is a
constituent concerns the fact that it can undergo ordinarv coortlination with
another similar sequence. as in:
\27) Who would have dared defy the [king o.f Englard] and fruler of the
Empirell
Moreover. it can lunction as the'shared constituent' in cases ol Shared Con'
s tiI uent C oor dinat i on: cl -
( 28) He was the last (and some people say the best) fking o.[ England]
Given our assumption that only a unitary constituent can undergo Sinple Co'
ordination. or can function as the'shared constituent' in cases ol Shared Con'
1'74
Compl<,nrcnt.s and Aditurcts 4.4
stitut,ttt ('oordinatiotr. the obvious conclusion to dra* is that the sequence
fkittq ol England] must indeed be a constituent. And this provides empirical
support for the anal.vsis in (24) above.
An additional type of argurnent in support of the N-bar analysis can be
f olrntrlatcd in relation to Pronontinulisariol tacts. Recall fronr
our discussion
in Chapter I that only a unitarv consrituent can be replaced by a proforrn -
and incleed only' a ylra.salconstituent of some sort. In the light of this observa-
tiott. consider thc use of tlre proform orre irr the lollowing examples:
(:9) (a) The present [king of England] is rnor-e popular rhan rhe last ole
(b) *The
[king] of England defeated rhe o,re of Spain
Hcru, can we account fol the contrasr here? Well. if rve posit that lking o.l'
Engluttdl is a'small'nominal phrase olsome sort (an N-bar. to be precise),
then *t- ct'ruld sav rhat or?c in English is the kind of proform which can replace
a 'srnall nominal phrase': in other r,"'ords. we can say that one is a pro-N-bar.
Thus. we could argue that [A"nrg o.f Englandlin (29) (a) can be replaced by one
because it is an N-bar; rvhereas A'irg in (29)(b) cannot be replaced by ore
because it is onlv an N and not an N-bar (and we alreadl, know that proforms
replace phrasal constituents. not individual words). But any such analysis
naturallv presupposes that [A-lng of Englandl is indeed a phrasal constituent of
sorne sort. as in Wells' analvsis (24).
So. both Coordination and Prononrinali.sation lacts provide strong empirical
support for the N-bar analysis. Accordingly. rve shall henceforth assume that
this analysis is correct. and that there is indeed an intermediate type of
rrorninal constituent (namel.v N-bar) which is larger than N but smaller than
NP. We thus posit that there are three rypes olnominal constituent in English.
namely' N, N', (: N-bar). and N" (: N-double-bar: NPf . This means that we
no longer recognise only two categorial /elcls ol nominal constituent (N and
NP): on the contrary. we are now assuming that there are three categorial
levels of nominalconstituent. namelv N. N-bar, and N=double-bar.
4,4 Complements and Adjuncts
What we have argued so far is that in an NP such as lthe king of
Englanfl. the postnomirl.al PP [o[ Englanrlj expands the head Noun frrzg into
the N-bar lkitg o/' Englanl]. rvhile the Determiner /re expands the N-bar [kr'ng
of'Englondl into the N-double-bar [the king ol England). Now. we might seek
to generalise our conclusions about the function of the PP fof Englandl in this
phrasc by suggesting that all posrnonrinal PPs (and indeed perhaps all post-
nominal phrases ol any kind) have essentially the same constituent structure
status. and thus serve to expand N into N-bar.
t75
Noun Phruses Cttmpletrrt'ttls ttntl Adjunt ts 4.1

However. any such hitstv conclusion would ignore lhe traditional distinc- Given rhe assumptions in (13). a Noun Phrase containing a Determitrer. an
tion between two difl'erent types of postnominal phrase -- namely (i) those Adjunct, and a Conrplement would have the schematic structure (34) below:
which function as Conrplcnrcnrs. and (ii) those which lunctir.rn trs ,{rfrrncr.r. We
(.1.1) t'--.---.--.-....-.-.-^
can illustrate the dill-erence betwecn these two rypes of'postmodifier in terms
of the contrast in (30) below: '' \-ou,un.,
(10) (a) a studcnt [o1 Ph.lsics] ( : Cornplement) N,
(b) ,"\
a sttldent ftrirlt long hairll = Adjunct) N- Complement

In the case of (10) ta) fu student Ltf-Ph.r-ticsl, the bracketed PP [t,,/ P/r.r'si.sl is (in
We: can see fiom (-14) that Determiners are sisters of N-bar and daughters ol'
an intuitive ly lairll, obvic-rus sense) the 'Complement' ot' sttulent: thc' PP tells us
N-double-bar; Adjuncts are both sisters and daughtc'rs ol- N-bar: and Comple-
what it is that the individual concernecl studies. Hence rhe NP fut stulent ol
ments are sisters ol' N and daughters of N-bar. This means that Adjuncts re-
Pl.r'.rit',rl can be paraphrase<i by u clausal constructiolt in which Pllsfu's func-
semble Complenlents in that both are daughters of N-bar; but they differ from
tions as the Complement ot'the Verb stlr./r': cf.
Cornplernents in that Adjuncts are sisters of N-bar, whereas Conrplements are
(31) (a) He is [a stulent ol Ph.r'sit's] sisters ol'N. Likewise. it means that Adjuncts rescmble Determiners in that
(b) He is [.rrurlr'rirg P/r.r'sir'.r] both are sisters of N-bar. but they differ liom Determiners in that Adjuncts
But this is not at ali the case in (30) (b). fu stult,nt n'irlt long huirl. ht this clse. are daughters ol- N-bar. whereas Determiners are daughters of N-double-bar,
Perhaps we can bring out the relevant distinctitlns rather more clearly in
the brrcketed PP Iu'itl lont huir] doesn't in any sense lune tior-r irs thc Cornple-
nrent of strrrlerrl, so that we don't have any corrcsponding p:rraphrasc'rn which
ternrs of the respective Phrase Structure Rules needed to generate Deter-
miners. Adjuncts. and Conrplements. Given the claims nade in ('31) above,
llong lmirl is used as the Complement ol'the Verb srur/.r': cf.
Determiners will be introduced by the rule (15)(i) below. Adjuncts by rule s
(-l:) (a) He is [,r stuleilt * ith long huirj (-15)(ii). and Complements by rule (35) (iii):
(b) - He is [:tutl.t'ing long huir') l
I
l
Thus. in (lI)(a) fu studettt r.,l P/r.r'.rir'.i]. the bracketed PP [ol Plr.r'sir'.s] spccilies
(35) (i) N" - D N' [Determiner Rule] s

what the student is studying: but in (31) (a)[tt.rtulent tith long /ralr] the brack-
(ii) N' ' N' PP [Adjunct Rule] )
',]
(iii) N' - N PP [Complement Rule]
eted PP doesn't tell us anything about what thc'student is studying: it rnerely
serves to give us additional intbrmttion about the student (i.e. that he happens
Frtr ease of relerence. we have called (-1-5) (i) the Determincr Rule (since tt tn-
to have long hair). ln traditionirl ternts. the kind of PP tbund it lstwlenr ttl
troduces Deternriners). t-16t(ii) the Adjunct Rule' and (-35)(iii) the Comple-
P/r.r'sic'.s] (or indeed [king o.f Englaati]) is said to 6e a Contplerrerrr. rvhereas that
ment Rule.
lbund in fstwlent v+ith lottg, /rtrlr] rs said to be an Aliuntt.
Now. if you think about rt. you'll realise that the rules in (35) make rather
Of course. ternrs like ('tttnplt'nent und, ,lljunt't deuote lrammatical func-
interesting predictions about the relative ordering of Adjuncts and Comple-
tions or relations. and thus have the same stalus as tcrnrs like'Subject'and
ments. More specifically. thev predict that Complernents will always be
'Object'. The obvious question to ask therelbre is whirt is the s/rur'rrrrul corre- .closer'to their head Noun than Adjuncts. In other words, our rules in (35)
Iate of'the Complement Adjunct distinction, and how do Complements and
predict thrrt it'rve modify ttudent b)' an Adj unct PP such as [x irlr long huirl. and
Adjuncts differ frorn the other clirss of nominal modifiers lvhich rve are alread.,
a complement PP such as [rll Plr-r..ri(sl. then the complemcnt phrase must pre-
Iamiliar with -. namc'ly Determiners. Whitt we shall clairn here is that the
cede the Adjunct phrase. And. (as Hornstc.in and Lightfoot 198 la. p. ll) note,
difl'erence is essentially the tollowing:
i: this predictic'rn is entirely correct ' cl'. their examplcs:
(13) ta) Deternriners expand N-bar into N-double-bar
(b) Adjuncts expand N-bar into N-bar
I
(36) (a) the student [crl Pirt'.rr<.r] lrith lttng huirl
(c) Complements expand N into N-bar 1t:
(b) *thc'student fttirh long huir]ltl Plt.r.sicsl
176 : t7-l

-.1
Noun Phrases Optional c<tnstituents Ltl'the Noun Phrase 4.5

attached the relevant lexical items. to make the discussion less abstract):
Given the'no crossing of branches' restriction. it follows that the rules in (35)
will qenerate Adjunct PPs to the right of Complement PPs as in (37) (a) below. 1+0) *'t
not to the left as in (37) (b): ..-
y1-/
(37) (a) ], n
,---,---*--.--.-u,
"''----"-
''\oo N,...-'\- z \ hair\
with long
N PP j -.tn -.-
iConplement) t Ad.junct )
srudent .,f Pnr sici\
And this is preciselJ'the constrtuent structure associated with a Noun Phrase
such as ld studt,nt of Ph_vsic.r witlt lon.q /roir]. So, you sce. thc rules do actually
(b) N

*,,/
.-- -.--
+.
--
I
uork. after all!

N-,' PP --
-"-.-----
PP
{Adjunctt (Complement) .1.5 Optional constituents of the Noun Phrase
Thus far, w'e have been Iooking irt the internal struclule of Noun
(37) (b) (which is the structure associated with the ungrammatical (36) (b)) is Phrases ol'the schentatic lbrnt 141) belou':
ruled out because it violates the 'no crossing of branches' restriction. But (.11 ) Deterrnirrer + Noun * Conrplernent PP + Adjunct PP
(37 (a) (which is the structure of the grammatical t16)(a)) contains no crossing
branches. and thus is well-formed. So. it follows from (37) that Cornplements and n'c have argued that such NPs can be generated by' a set of Phrase Struc-
must occur closer to their head Nouns than Adjuncts. And this is precisely ture Rules such as (35) abor e. repeated here for converrience as (42) below:
why the Complement phrase has to precede the Adjunct phrase in (36) and
(.11)(i) N" * D N'[Detenriner Rule]
why (more generally') postnominal Cornpiements precede postnominal
{it1 N' - N' PP [Adj'nct Rule]
Adjuncts (as noted by Jackendoff 1977a. p. 58).
(iii) N' * N PP [Conrplement Rule]
But I bet you're wondering whether the rules proposed in (-15) above really
work! So let's see whether the;- do. lf we apply the Determiner Rule (35)(i) Horvevcr. one fairlv trbvious point ivhich we have overlooked in our rules in
[N" r D N']. we generate the substructure (38)below: (.12)is that Determiners. Adjuncts. and Cornplernents are all oprionalconstitu-
ents of Noun Phrases. Let's corrsider first the optional use of Determiners.
(3 8) One thing u'hich it is irnportant to get clear at the very outset of our discus-
sion is exactlv rvhat u e do and do not mean bv claiming that 'Determiners are
D--"tn.-.--=-"
optional constituents of the Noun Phrase'. All we mean is that 'Sorne Noun
Phrases are uscd rvithoul Determiners': what we emphaticallv do not mean is
If we then apply the Adjunct Rule (35) (ii) [N' * N PP] to expand the N-bar
that 'Anv Noun Phrase of anr kind can optionallv be used with or without a
in (38). we derive:
I)eterminc'r'. Of course . therc are conrplex conditions rvhich determine when
(3e) N" Detelnriners can or cannot be omitted frorn a Noun Phrase: for example. in
--
D"'t n'\ro genclal. Noncount Nouns and Plural Count Nouns can be used rvithout an
overt f)e'ter^nriner. but Singular Count Nouns cannot: cl.
N' (a)
(J-]) Cliltllutod can bc traunratic (:Noncount Noun)
If we subsequently appl,v the Complement Rule (35) (iii) [N' - N PP] to the (h) Cltildrctt can be traumatic ( :
plutut Count Noun )

N' at the bottom olthe tree in (39). we derive the structure (40) belou'(we have (c) *Child can be traumatic (: Singular Count Noun)

178 179
Noun Phrases Optional (onstitLtcttts o.l Ihe Nttun Plrrttse 4'5

However. it is not our purpose here to deal with the complex conditions under Rule (41) (i) by our uew rule (47). t-rur revised system of Phrase Structure
which Determiners can or cannot be omitted in English (or more generally): Rules is now (48) below:
the reader interested in such questions should consult the relevant section on N"
the use of'Determiners in a detailed rel-erence grammar such as Quirk el a/.
(48) (i) - (D) N'IDeterminer Rule]
(ii) N'* N' PP[Adjunct Rule]
(1985). What concerns us here is sirnply the question: 'What is the structure of
(iii) N'' N PP[Complement Rulel
Noun Phrases which lack Determiners, and how will our existing set of rules
(42) above have to be modified in order to cope with such NPs'l' Let's consitler how our revised rule system works'
So, to return to a lamiliar example. what concerns us here is how we are to WestirrtbyapplyingtheDeterminerRule(48)(i),whichtellsusthatwecan
generate a simple f)eterminer-less nominal expression such as: expantlanN'.intoanoplionalDeterminerplusanN-bar:i|werejectthe
(49)
option ol'having a Determiner. then our rule will generate the structure
(44) Students of'Physics with long hair
below:
The first question we should ask about (44) is: 'What is the constituent status
of the overall phrase'l' In other words. is (44) an N-bar. or an N-double-bar
(,1e) T
l\N'
(i.e. full Noun Phrase)? The answer is that (44) is indeed a l-ull Noun Phrase. as
can be shown by a variety of familiar constituent structure tests. For exan-rple, We now appll' the Adjunct Rule (48) (ii): this tells us that we can expand
(49)
it can occur in isolation as a'sentence-liasment'. as in (^15) below: N-bar inro anorher N-bar plus a PP Adjunct: thus. if we apply the rule to
above. we derive the structure (50) below:
(45) SrEAKER n: What kind of students do you hate teaching'l
sPEAKER v:fStuclents o./ Ph.r'.tit's ttith lttng hairl (-i0) N
I

N'
Given our assumption that only tull Phrases can occur as sentence fragments, ---
-t- -DD
it fbflows that the bracketed Phrase [srrrr/ents o/ Ph,t'sits xith long /rcir] uttered t\ r !

by Speaker n in (45) must be a full Noun Phrase.

Now let's move on to the Complelnent Rule ('18) (iii). which tells us that
we
And indeed this analysis is intlependently confirmetl by other sets of f'acts. applying
can expand N-bar rnto a head Noun followed by a PP Complement;
For example, such expressions can be coordinated with a full NP. and can also (51)below have inserted
this rule to (50) above will yield the structure 1we
be pron,:minalised by a pro-NP such as rlenr;
a ppro pria te lexical i tr'ms for corlcreteness ):

(46) (a) 15p Students of Physics with long hairl and [5p their pro.l'essors] N"
(51)
often don't see eye to eye I

(b) N'
[Np Students of Physics with long hair] sometimes think the world
owcs llelr a [iving ----
N
,PP
-tt

But given that expressions such as [sluzlenls o.l' Pht'sics wirh long huir) can func-
tion as NPs, how can we account tbr the fac:t that they lack Determiners? *"" \or-4f,""*;>
Sadly, the answer is disappointinglv unspectacularl We say the obvious, I

stuoents 4irnr)>
and specify that Determiners are .T,/l()rral constituents of NP. Or. more pre-
cisely. rve replace our earlier Determiner Rule (42)(i) [N" ' D N'] by the Thus. our revised rules in (48) above can indeed generate NPs which contaln
revised rule (47) below: no Determiner.
Butholdonaminutelltisn.tjustDelerntinerswhichareoptionalconstltu-
(47) 5" * (D) N'[new Determiner Rule] and Adjunt'ts are
ents of Noun Phrases: for, as we noted above, Contplements
For in the case we are discussing'
The parentheses around D in (47) indicate that the Determiner is an optional also optional constituents of NP. example,
constituent of N" (recall that N": NP). If we replace our earlier Determiner boththeComplementPP|oJ.Ph4'sicslandtheAdjunctPPfwithlonghair|are
r8l
180
 Noun Phrases Olttirtrtul tott.slitut'nt.s ttf thc Noun Plrruse 4.5

optional, as we see lrom the paradigrn in (-52) below. \\'e- now appll'our ne\\ C'ornplc-nrent Rulc (5'l) (iii): this tells us that we can
er\pand an N-bar into atr N ri'ith or withc-rut 1n optional PP complenlent. Well.
(52) (a) a student [o/ Ph.t'sics)ltt'ith long finir] (Complement and Ad;unct)
let's sug'rplrsg that $'e decide not to choose the PP complcment ln this case.
(b) a student [u'ith long fiair] (Adiunct. no Conrplernent)
N-bar will b!'expandcl intr.r \ alone. as in (57)helorv (we have insc-rted rele-
(c) a student fof Phv.sit's](Complement. no Adjunct)
\,tnt ie\ical iterrts lbr thc. sake t-.f tnakitrq Our tliscussiotl lnorc- collcrete. alld
(d) a student (no Adjunct. no Complement)
thus rnore rntelligihle)
The obvious question to ask. therefore. is how wc are to modify our existing rsTl ,'- Nl----
Phrase Structure Rules (48) above so as to take into account the optionality ol'
Complements and Adjuncts. l) -'-
l --)PP,-
Let's consider first the question of hou'we generate NPs which contain an
Adjunct but no Complement ' i.e. NPs such as (52){b) lasrudcnr v'ith lortg
J
_ _-_-
N z with long hair -
irair]. The obvious suggestion is to deal witit optional Complcments in the I

same way that we dealt with optional Determine rs - trantelt' b,'" specify'rng that student
a Complement PP is an optional constituent of i'r'--bar'. -fhus. we might
FIence. u e sec that a ven' sitrtl'ric rrrodificntion of our earlier Cc-rmplement Rule
propose to replace our existing Complement Rule (.18)(iii) [N'* N PP] b-y
the revised rule (53) below:
rill sulilcc't{) enilble us to qenelate NPs in w-hich the head N has no Cornple-
rrellt.
(53) N' - N (PP) lnerv Cornplernent Rule] So. nori,\\:e'vc seen horv to dcal with optiorral Detertniners on the onc hand.
arrd optit'rnal Ctxtplenrerrts on th other. But what about optional Adiunctsl
where the parentheses round PP in (53) indicate that a Prcpositiorral Phrase
Irr other \\'r)rds. ho\\ nre ur- gtrittg to gclterate a structure such as (52)(c) [a
Cornplement is an optional constituent of N-Lrar. If se now replace our earlier
.\tudt'nt o/ P/ir',rlt.s]. uhtch contairts a Complement PP [,r/ P/n.sics]' but no
Compiement Rule by our ne\\' one. our relised overal) system of Phrase Struc'-
Adjunct PPI Well. thg oblior-ts sllggestion is to deal with otrrtional Adiuncts in
ture Rules becomes (54) beloq':
e\acll-y thr- same \v:lv that u'e clealt with optional Determiners and Comple-
(54) (i) N" * (D) N' [Determiner Rulc] nrc-nts. l'hat is to sal. ue nright sinrplv stipulate that Adjuncts are an optional
(ii) N' * N' PP [Adjunct Rulej constituen t rrf N-ba r. The na tural rva-v ol' doing this tnight seern to be simply
(iii) N' * N (PP) [Complement Rulel to put parr'nthescs round the Adjunct PP introduced by our existing Adjunct
Rulc t5-1)(ii) above. so tl.)irt our earlier rules (-54) u'ould be revised along the
Let's see how u,e can appiy our revrsed system ol- rules to generatc' a Noun
hncs of (-58)bc'lou lu,hcrc (5fl) tii) is the new Adiunct Rule);
Phrase such as (52) (b) la .rrudenr v'ith lon.q hair).
First, rve start b!'applying the Determiner Rule (54)(i): if we choose the (58) (i) N" * (D) N'[Deterrniner Rule]
optional Determiner, this generates the structure (55) bclou': (ii) N' - N' (PP) [neri Adjunct Rule]
(iii) N' - N (P[') [Complenrent Rule]
(s-s)
But rlvou thrnk about it..u-ou')l realise that (5R) (ii) can't be right at all. After
e-'/Nl-=-----\N all. onr- of the possibilities alloq'r'd for in our new Adjunct Rule (-58) (ii) is that
of omitting thc'PP Adjunct. in which case the Acljunct Rule would amount to:
We rrow go on to apply the Adjunct rule (-54) (ii) to expand N-bar in (55) into
the sequence [N PP]. as in (56) below,: (59; N'- N'

{ -56)
But rule (59) is laluorr.s. in a number of ways. For one thing. it's self-delining.
ancl hence doesn't actualll'tell us an.vthing about how to form an N-bar (it's a
D'' __-)
r----_- bit like a person who. rvhen asked to define a troglodtte says 'Well. a troglo-
-\
N:'-t PP d1.'te's a troglodyte. and that's ail there is to say about it!'). More seriously.

r82 183
Noun Phrases
rule (59) does no more than chase its own tail (well, if you want the relevant
technical jargon, the rule is vtttuouslt, ret'ursive\). Whv'l Because its output
(:N') is the same as its input (:N'). so that the rule ullorvs you to stack a
potentially infinite number of non-branching N-bar constituents on top ol
each other. This means that we (quite wrongly) predict that any Noun Phrirse
should be potentially infinitely structurally ambiguous. according to how
many non-branching N-bars it has stacked on rop oforhsr N-bars. For, we as-
sume that differences in structure will generally correlate with perceived difler-
ences of meaning: so. rule (59) implies that a simple NP like [a bo_r'] should be
infinitely ambiguous according to whcther it contains one, two. three. lour.
five, . . . etc. non-branching N-bar constituents. But this is an absurd claim,
and one which we shall treat with the contempt it deserves!
The bottom line of our argumentation here is that we c.rnnot deal with the
optionality of Adjuncts in terms of a rule such as (-58) (ii) saying that an N-bar
can be expanded into another N-bar plus an optional Adjunct PP. So, assum-
ing that we don't opt lbr the'tail-chasing'(sorry, I mean r'ilctous rcc'ursiont\
solution (59), how are we going to deal with the optionality' of Adjuncts'i Well.
there's an even simpler solution than )'ou might have expected: and that is to
simply stipulate thirt our earlier Adjunct Rule (5.1)(ii) is an optionul rule.'lhat
is to say, we can either choose to apply the rule, or not appl! it, as we wish. In
other words. we rnight revise ourearlier rules (5,1) in thc manner indicated in
(60) below:
(60) (i) N" * (D) N' [Deterrninc.r RuleJ
(ii) N' - N' PP [Adjunct Rult:: oplional]
(iii) N' - N (PP) [Complement Rule]
In the light of our claim that the Adjunct Rule (60) (ii)\s optionul (and hence
can be'skipped' if we wish to do so), let's go back to the question of how we
generate a structure like (51) (c) lu stulenr ol Ph.r'sitsl. As beibre. we start by
applying the Detcrminer Rulc (60)(i) [N" - (D) N'i: this telis us that we can
torm an NP 1: 5-rjor',Ole-bar) out of an optional Determiner and an N-bar. If
we take the Deterrniner option, Ihen we generate the structure (61) belor.r':
(6t)
D---"-'N\--\\N,
Now we come to the Adjunct Rule. (60) (ii). Since this rule is r;ptioncl. we can
choose to either apply it. or not apply it. We'll take the latter course, and
choose to 'skip' the rule altogether. This means that we go on to apply the
Complenrent Rule (60) (iii), which expands N-bar into a head N plus an
184
Optictnul (onstituenls o.f tlrc Noun Phrase 4.5
optional PP Complement. Well let's suppose we take up the option of having a
PP Complement: in this case. the result ol'applying the Complement Rule
(60)(iii) to (61) will be the structure (62) below (as before, we have inserted
appropriate lexical items. for the sake ol'clarity):
l61l N"
Dttttt
I" I
\
student
'(rn, stcs -
of Noun studenr,
Since the PP [ol PA.r'sics] in (62) is a Complement of the head
wc' have now managed to achieve our goal of generating a Noun Phrase with-
out an Adjunct.
So, we have managed to adapt our original rule system so as to cope with
NPs which contain Adjuncts but not Complements, and conversely NPs
which contain Complements but not Adjuncts. But ivhat about NPs which
contain neither Complements. nor Adjuncts - c.g. NPs such as (52)(d)
[u studentl. Can our revised system ol Phrase Structure Rules (60) handle
these'l Well. let's see.
We'lt begin by applying the Determiner Rule (60)(i) to generate the struc-
ture (61) above. We then'skip' the optional Adjunct Rule (60) (ii): we go dir-
ecrly on to the Complement Rule (60) (iii), which tells us that we can expand
an N-bar into a head N, plus an optional PP complement. But this time, let's
take the option ol not choosing to have a PP complement, so that we expand
N-bar sirnply into ln unmodified N: the result will be that by applying the
Complenrent Rule (60)(iii) ro (bl)above we generate (63) below (as before.
the relevant lexical rtems have been inserted):
(63)
-----"
o---'t'*t'
ll
,N
,,u,1"n,
Since the NP in (63) above contains neither a Complement PP nor an Adjunct
PP. it secms clear that our cxisting system of rules in (60) is perfectly adequate
to deal with NPs which lack both C-omplements and Adjuncts.
We have now seen that the very simple set of rules we devised in (60) will
generate a full range of NP structures. with or wit.hout Determiners, with or
without Adjuncts, and with or *'ithout Complements. and will assign appro-
priate structures to the NPs concerncd: lbr example, (52) (a) fa student of
185
Noun fhreses Mitrt, difleren<cs hetvaen Contplentents and Adjuncts 4.6

Pi,r,.srcs with lona hairl will be assigned the structure 140) above; (52) (b) [a
studenr v'ith long hairlwill be assigned the structure (57): (52) (cl [a srudent of
Ph1'sicsl will be assigned the structure (62): and (52)16) fa student] rvill be
assi-qned the structure (63). Now. if you look closely at these lbur structures
(40), (57). (62) and (63). you'll see that the categorial status ofthe exprcssion
snklent changcs from one example to another. More precisely, student has the
status of a simple N in (40) and (62): rvhereas it has the status of an N-bar im-
mediateiy dominating an N in (57) and (63). To underline this fact' rve give the
structure ol the relevant eramples in skeletal f orm in (64) and (65) below:
(64) (a) [X u [X' [N' [w sturlcatl of Phy-sics] with long hairl l
(b) [X a IX IA'.tlridelr/] of Phlsicsl l
follows that sru&irr cannot have the status of N-bar in phrases such as (64),
but rather must have the simple status of N.
We can use our oac-pronominalisation test to provide further confirmation
olthe constituent structure analyses we have posited in (64) and (65) above.
For. our proposed anal-ysis also specifies that the sequeilces lstudent of
Pft.r'sit.sl in (64) (a). lsrudenr of Ph.r'sics ttirh long hair)in (6a;1uy. fstudent o.l'
Plr.r',sit'.sl in (6,1) (b). and, lstudent nith long hairl tn (65)(a) are all N-bar con-
stltue-nts: hencc'we should cxpect that all four phrases can be proformed by
the pro-N-bar orrc. And as (68) below indicates. this prediction is entirely
correct:
(68) (a ) Which [student of Physics]? The onc with long hair?

(a) (b) Which [stude nt of Physics with long hair]? This orre?
(65) [N a [N, [N' [v srldenr] I with long hairl l (c) \\'hich [student of Physics]? That ontt'!
(b) [X a [,v ly studenr)ll (d) Which [studerrt with long hair]? This orrc?
The difference is that wl.ren the Noun shtdent has an overt Complement like [o/
Ihus. orrt-pronorrinalisation lacts provide quite remarkable independent
P&,l,sics] (as in (64) above). then it lunctions only as an N (because the corres-
corroboration of our analvsis. In particuiar. they lend strong support to our
ponding N-bar is the whole Noun+Complement structure fstudent of
clrjm that a ,\'otrn whlch ltas on otert Contplenrcnt is simplt' an N. u,hcreas a
Pl-ysics]). But when the Noun student has no overt Complement (as in (65)
Noun n'ltich lut'k.s a CornVlonnt hos the status o/' N-har (as we1l as Ar).
above). then it is not onll an N. but also an N-bar.
Norv, the assumption lhal srudent is an N in (64) but an N-bar in (65) has
4.6 l\,lore diflerences between Complements and Adjuncts
far-reaching consequences. We can see this if n'e look at the predictions the
Hitherto. we have argued that Determiners, Adjunct pps and
two structures make about the use of the proform orre . Recall that we argued
Cornplernent PPs should be generated by the lollowing set of phrase Structure
earlier that one in English can function as a pro-N-bar, but not as a pro-N
Rules 1cf. {60) above):
(because proforms do not replace word-level categories). Now. if it is true (as
our analysis claims) that student is an N-bar in (65), then since one is a pro-N- (69) (i) N" -' (D) N' [Determiner Rulel
bar, we should expect that student can be replaced by ore in structures like (rr) N' ' N' PP [Ad.iunct P.lule: oprionull
(65): and as (66) below illuslrates. this prediction is entirely correct: (iiil N' + N 1PP1[Conplernent Rule]
(66) (a) The [student] rvith short hair is dating the orre with long hair As we have alreadv seen. these rules specify (amongst other things) that Deter-
(b) This [student] rvorks harder than that onc miners. Ad.juncts, and Contplements differ fronr each other in the followinq
WAVS:
It therefore follows thaL student must have the status ol N-bar in examples like
(65) and (66). But by contrast. we find that.srudent cannot be replaced by the (70) (a) Determiners are sisters of N' and daughters of N"
proform ole in examples such as (64) above. as (67)below illustrates: (b) Acljuncts are sisters and daughters of N'
(d) Complements are sisters of N and daughters of N'
(67) (a) Which [student] u'ere vou referring to? *The orre of Physics *ith
lons hair?
In this section. u,e are going to look lrather more briefly) at a number of
(b) *The [student] of chernistrv was older than the one of Physics
further arguments in support ol the structural distinction between Comple-
(Lightfoot (1982), p. 54) n"renl PPs and Adjunct PPs drawn in (70) above.
One such argument is ol a semantic nature. Hornstein and Lightfoot
Since studerrl cannot be replaced b1' the pro-N-bar ,rrtc here. it therefore (l9li 1a. p.2l1note that the structural differences betwecn Comnlements and

186 187
Noun Phru.ses More dillercntes helv'een ('onrplerttents and Adjuncls 4.6

Adjuncts in (70) correlate in an obvious way with au associated diflerence in
semantic structure. In relation to the pair of sentences in (71,} below:
(71) (a) John is a [N'[N stulenr)u.l Ph.r'sics)
(b) John is a [n [N [5 stlrlen t] ) n'ith long huir]
they commcnt:
We also assume that syntactic constituent structure will play a
role in determining the sernantics ol'Noun Phrases. and specifi"-
ally that each N-bar specilies a'semantic property'. Therefore, to
attribute (71)(a) to John is to attribute one propcrty to hirn. that
he studies Physics: to attribute (71) (b) to John is to attribute two
properties, that he studies. and that he has long hair. Hence rt
lollows Lhat Jolm is u student ol Phvsit's, meaning what it does (i.e.
denoting only onc property), cannot be assigned a structure like
(7 I ) (b); conversely. John is a sIu.len t vr ith long /rr.rir, rneaning what
it does (i.e. denoting two properties) cannot have a structure likc'
(7 I ) (r).
(Hornstein and Lighttbot, Intr,.tduttion to E.rplunatiun itr
Linguistit's (198 la). p.2l)
A related semantic argument can be f ormulated with regard to distrnhiguu-
tion. lt should be obvious that the strucrtural distinction we hitve drawn
between Complerneni PPs (which modity N) and Adjunct PPs (which modil-v
N-bar) will enable us to provide a principled tc:count ot'the structural arnbi-
guity of phrases such rs:
(71) a student bl high nrorttl printiplesl
Thus, our structural distinction betwecn Complements and Adjuncts enables
us to characterise some fairly interesting cases ofstructural ambiguity.
But let's return io syntactic arguments in tavour of our claim that Comple-
ment PPs expand N into N-bar. whereas Adjunct PPs expand N-bar into
N-bar. An inrportant difltrence between the Adjunct Rule (69) (ii) above
(which introduces Adjunct PPs). and the Complement Rule (69)(iii) (which
introduces C'omplement PPs) is that the Adjunct Rule is recarsive. whereas the
Complernent Rule is not: f or convenience, we have repeated our earlier rules
(69) above as (75) below:
(75)(i) N" - (D) N' [Determiner Rule]
(ii) N' - N' PP [Adjunct Rule optional]
( iii) N' - N (PP) [Complement Rule]
The Adjunct Rule (75) (ii) is recursive by virtue of the fact that the same
symbol N'appears both on the lef t and on the right of thearrow, whereas the
Complement Rule (75)(iii) is non-recursive. Since the rule generating
Adjuncts is recursive. it predicts that indetinitely many Adjunct PPs can be
'stacked'on top of each other. But because the rule introducing Complements
is not rccursive. it cloes nol allow PP Complements to be stucked in this way.
And in fact. the prcdiction that PP Adjuncts can be'stacked' but PP Comple-
ments cannot seems to be correct. as we see from the contrast in (76) below:
(76) (a) the student [v'ith long huir][n'ith short armsj
(b) *thestudent
[oJ' Physics)lol Cht'nristrv]
Moreover. our analysis predicts that PP Adjuncts can be stacked on top of
each other in any order: and this again seems to be true, as examples such as
(77) below (where both italicised phrases are Adjunct PPs) illustrate:

The NP in (72) is ambiguotrs as between the two interpretatiorls: (77) (a) the [5, [51, Ip, student] w'ith long luir) in the t'ornerl
(b) the [51' [p [1' student] in the torne rf n'ith long huirl
(73) (i) a person who studies high moral principles
(ii) a student who has high moral principles
Furthermore. under our proposed analysis ol'(77) (a) the sequences lstudentl,
lstudent with long /rair], and fstudent trith long hair in the coraer] would all be
And we might char:rcterise this ambiguity in structural terms by saying that on N-bar constituents, so that we correctly predict that all three bracketed strings
interpretation (73)(i) the bracketed PP (72) is a Complement (hcnce a sistcr) can be replaced by the pro-N-bar one in an appropriate context. And as we see
olthe head Noun srur/errl; whereas on interpretation (73) (ii)' the bracketed PP frorn (78) below. the bracketed sequences can indeed be proformed by one in
in (72) is an Adjunct, hence a sister of the N-bar headed by the Noun stwlent. each case:
This would mean that on the first interpretation, (72) would have the skeletal
(78) (a) Which [student]'l The one with long hair in the corner'J
structure (74) (a) below, whereas on the second interpretation it would have
(b) Which [student with long hair]'? The orre in the corner'l
the structure (7a) (b):
(c) Which [student with long hair in the corner]? That one'!
(7a) (a) a [N, [N student] of high moral principlesl (:7r(i1)
Once again, our analysis turns out to make just the right predictions.
(b) a [N, [N,[N student]l of high moral principiesl 1:731;1,1
189
188
Noun Phrase.s
A flrther syntactic argunlL-nt in lavour of the structural distinction bet[een
Complements and Adjuncts which rve arc assuming here can be forrnulatetj irr
refation to lacts about Orzlirrrrr)'('oordinatiprt. Notc that rve catr coordinate
t'Ao PPs rvhich are hoth C'orrrplcments: c[.
(791 a student [o/ P]t.iic,rl and [o/-Clrarrrstrrl
And likewise r,re can coorciinate lwo PPs which are both Adjuncts: cf.
(80) a student b|ith lrng /inirl and fu'itlt 'shtrrt urntsl
But we cannot coorclinatc- a Conrplerncnt PP u'ith an Adlurrct PP: cf
(a) *a student
(81) lrtl P/rr'.rit-.r] ancl [l lrlr ltntg ltuir]
(b) *a studctrt
fwith l!)ttg /rui.] anil [ol l'lt.r.rir"d
Uncler the analysis proposcd here. rve call accoullt for this in structural ternts
by assuming that Aci.iuncts and Conrplc'tnents are attached at difltrerlt levels
(Complements are sisters of N. and hencc are attached at the N level; g hereas
Adjuncts are sisters of N-bar. and hetrce are llttached at the N-bar leYel). and
by positing that onlY constituents attached at the s:rme lc-r'el can be co-
ordinated. It rvould then follorv that the two Complement PPs in (79) can be
coordinated (since both are attached at the N level), as can the trvo Adjunct
PPs in (80) (since both arc attachcd at the N-bar lclcl): but it $ould alstr
follo$'that an Adjunct cannot be cottrdinated $ ith a Complerllent (as rn (li l )).
since Cornplentents are attached at the N lcvel. $hereas Adiuncts are attached
at the N-bar level.
Incidentallv. ue rnight note in p:rssing that our proposed arrall'sis tnakes a
nultber of lurther correct predictions about coordination. Ft-rr exanlple. since
both Conrplements and Adjuncts arc- daughters of N-bar (i,e both Noutr*
Conrplement and Noun +,Adjunct sequc-nces have 1he sttrtus of N-bar). our
analysis correctly predicts that the Noun * Cornplement Sequence fstudgtt L,/
P/rlsjt.s] and the Noun*Adjunct sequc-nce lstudent n'ith lnn,q /rrrir'l have thc-
same constituent status of N-bar. artd so can be coordinatcd with themselves
and each other in such a wav that the ivhole conjoined sequence lorms an
N-bar. and thus can be modificd h,v a Determiner such as //rc: alld the lact that
examples such as (82) below are gramnralical shows that this prediction is
correct:
(81) (a) the[studcrlt.s ol'Chemistrrandproles.sor.r of Ph.t'.sics]
(b) the [,stur'lclt"s rt'ith long hair and prole.r.srrr'r x'ir/t short hairf
(c) the [.rnrrlent.r itl Cherni.rlr.t and prof"t'ssors :r''ith short hair]
. o/. arrd rrl'introduces a Cttnrplernent phrase. so that (85)(a)involves preposing
Each of the italicised conjuncts in (8llis thus an N-bar. as indeed is each
the bracketed coordinate structures.
r90
lf ,'rt,tli.itrt'trt.r'.r Ar'ltl'r'(.,r? (-ttrttpl<,nrotts tutd .ldjunt'ts 1.6
An additronal stntactic ifgulnent in favour of drawing a structural distinc-
tion between Complernents and Adjuncts derives f'rorn Extraposlliol facts (we
shall cliscuss this phentrmenr)n nlLrre ftrllf in Chapter 8) lt appears that PP
Ad.juncts can be r:-rri-r4rrr.set/fl'onr their Heads (i.c. separated frorn their Heads
anrJ nroved to the end of their Clause) nrore lieely than PP Completnents: cf.
(81)(a) astudcntc0me foseeme)'estr-rr1ay[ilitlr long hoir]
rhr) *a student callre to sec nrc -"-esterdal'lo/' Phr'.sicsl
It u'ould seem that ir sonre scnse PP Cornplements are more 'inseparable'
florn their Helds than PP Adiuncts. Once again. our anall'sis pro."ides us with
a lrrincipled \\'ir) {rf accounting lbl tbesc- differences in purely slruclurul rerms.
Tlrus. u'e rnight posit that the nrorc close Iy related a PP is to its IIead, the less
frr-clv it carr br- crtraposcd. Ancl (to ertend ths: genealogical terrninology intro-
duced in ('hapter'3). u'e rnirht sa1'that Cornplements are.si.r/cr.s to their
Hcrrds. *lrcrees Adjuncts are (71//r/.i lan awtt being a sister of the mother ola
gilcn nodt'). To clarifl lhe term rzrrrl. consider a structure such as (84) below:
(8rl) _ A - \ .'-.^
-B- L
,./ \
D' -E
\\ic nright saJ, that in an abstract trec- stl'ucture such as (84). E is the sister of D.
*hererts C is tlre r?rill ol D. In tlrese tenns. i) Cornplem:nt would be a sister of
its Head Noun. autl hence rnore closelv related to the Head than an Adjunct
(u'hich rvould he arr auril ol the llead Noun): and lve rnight suppose that it is
bc-cur.rse therc- is a greatcr structural allinitv betu'een Heads arrd Complements
than benvc-en Heads and Adiuncts. that Cotrplemelrts are nrore resistant to
beirrg extraprrsecl.
(iiven that Extraposition involves Postpositrg. the obvious question tc'r ask is
uhether Conrplerric-nts ;rnel Adjuncts behave any differently with respect to
Prtprt.sing. There is sonc evidence that thrs is indeed the c:ase. It would seem
thlt an NP rvhich is thc' Ob-iect ol- a Preposition heading a Conrplenrent PP can
be preposed rnore freel-r- than an NP rvhich is the Object of a Preposition head-
ing an ..{rfurrtrr PP: cf. the contrasl belorv:
(a)
(85) |l'lnt hrartch,?/ P/r.r'.rrr..il are _l-ou a student oP
(bi *[II']tat kirtd ,tl ha!r] arr']ou a student rvrth?
Thus. in (85)(a). thc prc-posed brackcted NP is the Ob.iect of the Preposition
of an NP rvhich is part of a Complement PP. But hy contrast. the bracketed pre-
poscd NP in (8-s)(b) is tirc Ohject of the Preposition l'irl. arrd wlll introduces
l9l
 Noun Phruses Llore dit'f'erenc'es betv'een Contplements and Adjuncts 4.6

an Adjunct. so that the ungrammaticality of (85) (b) suggests that an NP
which is part ofan Adjunct PP cannot be preposed. Thus. there is an obvious
contrast insolar as the Obiect ot'a Complement Preposition can be preposed,
but not the Object of an Adjunct Prepositr'on.
Yet another syntactic argument in support of positing a struclural distinc-
we lind subcategorisation restrictions holding between the head Noun studenl
and its sister Complement PP [o/ Pfr.1'sics], but not between student and its aunt
Adjunct PP In ltl long hairl. But, naturally, any such account ol subcategorisa-
/ion restrictions presupposes a structural distinction such as that in (70)
between C omp le tnen t s and Adjunc t.s.

tion between Cornplement and Adjunct Phrases relates to Co-oL'turrence At this point, it might be useful to summarise our discussion in this section.
Res!rictittns. In the case ol'a PP Complement, there are severe rest.rictions on We have argued that there are a vast array of facts (some semantic, and some
the choice of P heading the PP: particular Nouns require (or, in the ternrino- syntactic) which lend strong empirical support to the claim that Complements
logy we shall introduce in Chapter 7, suhcategorise) a PP introduced by a par- are attached at the N-level, and Adjuncts at the N-bar level. More precisely.
ticular Preposition: for example. only some Nouns. not others perrnit an ol- the key claim we have made is that:
phrase Cornplement: cl'. (89) (i) Complements expand N into N-bar

t86) (a) a.ttudent of Phy'sics (ii) Adjuncts recursively expand N-bar into N-bar
(b) *a brrr of' Phl sics
Thus. Complements and Adjuncts are similar in that they are both daughters
(c) *a girl ol'Physrcs of N-bar; but thev differ in that Complenlents are sisters of (i.e. modify) N,
(d) *a teenogcr t'rl'Physics whe reas Adjuncts are sisters of 1i.e. modify) N-bar.
(e) *a punk ofPhysics
Given the argunrents rve have presented here, PPs such as those italicised in
(90) below would be Complements'.
By contrast the typc of PP which flnctions as urr Adjunct can be used to
rnodify dnl type ol head Noun (subject to semantic and pragnratic restric- (90) (a) your reply fto n.r, letter]
tions), as we see from. (b) the attack fon the Prine ltlinisrerl
(87) ta) a student with long hair (c) the loss lo/ rhe shipl
(b) a ho.r'with long hair' (d) her disgust [ut his behaviour]
(c) a girl with long hair (e) hisdisiilusionmentIB'llftLingrrrrtir'-sJ
(d ) .\ teenugu with long hair whereas PPs such as those italicised in (91) belori'would be ,4djuncts:
(e) a punA with long hair
(91 ) ia) the book [on the tahle)
Once again. it if'. in some inlbrmal sense. Complemcnts are lnore
seems as (b) the advertisementfoil lhe television)
closely linked to their head Nouns than Adjuncts. And $e rnight argue that (c) the hght [cr/ter rhe nutth]
the N-bar analysis enables us to define'closeness' in purelv structural tenns. in (d) his resignation lbecause o.f rhe stundul]
the manner outlined earlier: e.g. we might say that srsrcr-s are morc closely (e) a cup [xillr u broken handle]
linked to their Heads than rrrltrs, and we could posit that subcategorisation re-
I leave you to verify this for yourself-, applying the various'tests'rve have
strictions hold only between a Head and its sisters. not between a Head and its
devised in this section. and previous sections (l bet you won't bother!)
more distant relatives (.e.g. aunts). Thus, in the case of a structure such as (40)
Of course, our discussion here has been limited to postnominal Preposi-
above, repeated as (88) below:
tional Phrases. But the Complement-Adjunct distinction can be shown to be
(88) *'t .- valid fcrr other types of postnominal phrase as well (though we lack the space
o----t *'-----..--; to do this here). Generally speaking. only Prepositional Phrases and Clauses
t^
,,/.
N-
\__
, *,,:-
,,.rPP'
ep -:
=.:frii,,,."),;:
can function as the Complements of Nouns. For example, the italicised con-
stituents in (90) above are Complement PPs: and the italicised in (92) below
are Cttnrplernent (.'lauses- i.e. the italicised Clause in each case functions as the

srudent z of Phls;):' Complement ol the capitalised Noun:

r93
r9l
Noun l'hrases I|ort' dillt'rt'rtL'c.r b1'1y,',1r CrtntpIe nu,nIs und ,4djunL'ts 4.6

(92) (a ) the SIJGGESI'IoN [l/ral rc .thould uhundon cruise rnrisilc.r] (95) N:'
(b) the DETI AND lfor hint to rc.rignl D..
(c) the euESTroN [whether eutlrunasia i.s cthical] I \
tn N PP
I

By contrast, a much wider rarrge olconstituents can function as postnominal advocate p N"
Adjuncts- not just PPs. but also te'mporal NPs. APs and Clauses (more pre- I

cisely. Restrictive Relative Clauses). For example. in (93) belorv. each o{'the
of D' ,N-
i

italicised constituents is an Ad.junct of the N-har containing the capitalised thc

\ ")PP-
constituents:
anotf rion 1*'o*rr,)h>
(a) Conversell. in (9.1) (b) hoth rrillr-phrases are Adjuncr pps. and hence (given
(91) the [N [N' Ar]olrrro\ oF rAxr,sl [Np nc.rl r'cdrl I
(b) rrur earlrcr arqurncnts)both siste|s of N-bar. But the crucial point is that they
those Ip, [51, srrrnrxrs oF pH]'slcsl [6p ah.renr.front cla.r.s)]
(c) are ,Ad.juncts of difTerent N-bal constitucnrs: thc lirst x.illr-phrase nrodjfies the
the[51 [p, KrNGoFrrc;lrso][gx'ho abdicured])
N-bar lr'()/rr(,//? rvhereas thc second moclifies the N-bar unhrellu, so that (94) (b)
But I guess you've had just about enough of postnonrinal Phrases b-u- nou'. so has tlre stntcture (96) bclorv:
l'll spare you the relevant argumentution .. . ()r rathcr. leave you to devise (96 )
N\
some of it for yoursell in an appropriate exc-rcise !
D-
However, there's one additional complication u,hich we'll touch upon I
----n..
briefly. So lar. all the Noun Phrases we've lookc-d at have been .sirrrplr' NPs :l N PP
I

comprising a head Noun uith or withor.rt an optional Determiner. Comple- N P' Nr,'
ment. or Adjunct. What rvc- have nrrt consrdered is the structure of t'orrrplcr il "\.:-'N.
NPs such as those in (94)below:
wonlan \\ lth D' ---\
i ..''
an N' -pp
(94) (a) an advocate of the abolirion of indirect taxation | ,-'-'a retl ---
z-ivith
(b) awotrlotr with an wnhrella u'ith a red handle N handlF
(c) I

her di.tlike of rlar with big egos u rrrbrt'lla

(d) a girl\"ith a di-slike of macho men In t9'1) (c). the rrl-phrase is a (iomplemc'nt pp whereas the rr.illr-phrase is an
Ad.iunct PP lrecall that conrpiernenrs are sisters ol'N. and Adjurrcts are sisrers
For reasons which should nou be familiar. the tr1:phrases in these eramples of N-har). Hou,e'uer. *'hereas the oltpfi12s.. moclifies the N r/rs/rte. the ],,1/r_
are all Complement PPs (hence sisters of N). r,r'hereas the rltlr-prhrases in each phrase rnodifies the N-bar lrdl. so that (g.l) (c) has the structurr- t97) below.
case are all Adjunct PPs (hence sisters of N-bar) But thc- crucial point that rr'e
want to make here is that although all the examples contain two PPs, the first (q7) ,-'nl-- .:
PP in each case modifies the first italicrsed norrinal. *'hrle the second PP modi- D -N-
fies the second italicised nominal. To make matters clearer. let's briefl1'lot.rk in
I .."
her N . PP.
rather more detail at the internal slructure of each of the NPs in (9.1t (omitting
the relevant argumentation lor the sake of brevitl ).
oistire P " "'"'
I

In (94) (a), both ofphrases are Comprlement PPs: but they' are Comple- of N..-
rnents of different head Nouns. More preciselv. the first o/'-phrase is a Cornple-
. -
\.
N
ment of the Noun advocate, whereas the second one is a Cornplement of the
Noun abolition. Given our earlier argumcnts that Complements are sisters of \ --PP
--;ii ni-l-i.=
N, then (94) (a) will have lhe struciure (9-s) beiow: nlen

194
19,5
Nourt Phruses
.\',trninul lr<'rnottiliars 1.7
In (94) (d) we havt a rather dill'ert'nI situation: the first PI'1:11.r. N irlr-phrase) (ii) .4ttriltutes recursi!ely expand N-bal into N-bar
is an Adjunct (hence a sistcr of N-bar'), whereas the second PP 1:11ig ,,7- (iii) Cornplt'ntettt.t expand N into N-bur
phrasc) is a Complement (hence a sister ol'N). But whereas the l'ltfi-phrase
modifies gir'l. the ol:phrlse modifies r/l.r/llc, so that (94) (d) has the structrue Since bcrth .lttrihutes lntl Jrlirrrcts recursively- cxpand N-bar into N-blr. it
(98)below: seenrs clear that the two havc essentially the sanre l'unction, so that..l///llrlft,.r
arc- simply prenominal Adjuncts (though r.r'e shall continue to follow tradition
(98) N" and lefer to artributive premodifiers ns .lttrihttte.; rrther than ,,ldjunLts1. For
D" "N' tlre tinre being. we shlll concentrirte orl the drstinctitrn betrvcen Conrplenrcnts
I ,-. ' "..- and .{ltri6rrIt.r: lind mor('specilicallJ-. wc shali cLrnccnlratc on the distinction
a N'' PP
betwec'n Cornplernent NPs rnd Attribute NPs.
t . -" "1.\
N P -,,N.. In this connection, consider the lollou ing Noun Phrase:
I..'\
girl rr, ith D. N l0t) aICttnthridgtl [Pl,r'src'.r] studcnt
_
l .,.. \ t
a N .-PP-
Lz" --- Clearly, (l0l)is irmbiguous. betwec'n the two interpretations rvhich can bc
tiislikt' ---irt rnacho meri= paraphrased as in ( l0l) belo*':

'fltus, in more conrpler cltscs ol'postnominal n-roclificatirrn we havc'to be con- (i) a student ol Phvsics (x'/rrr i.r') at Canrbridge
( l0l )
uerncd not onlv with the qucstrcrn ol whether a grvcn postmoditier is a C'onr- (ii) a studenl ol Cambridge Phy'sics (i.e. the particular brand ol-
prlement or an Adjunct. but also with the question of'',vhich particular nominal Physics laught at Cambridge. iis opposed lo O.r.lord P/r.r'sh's)
it modities. Not surprisingll . therelbrc. we lind cascs ol structural lmbiguitl
such as the fbllowing: ln our discussion here. rve'll concern oursclves sr:lel_v- with the first and most
natural interpretation. namely (10:)(i): this is purell,for didactic purposes. to
(99) .r \uornan w,ith threq'chilclren with ginger hair make our cxposition as simple and concise as possible (our analysis can be
extended struightforwardlv to deal with the second interpretation (l0l)(ii), in
wlrere tlre Adjunct PP [lrllr ginger ltuir) might bc taken to modift'eitht'r thc ways that l'll leavc y"ou lo lvork out lor yourscll').
N-bar Irrr.,lt,lr with lltrt,t' chi!tlrt,n]. or the N-bar L'hildrcn'. in other worcls. rt
ln analvsing (l0l ) (on rnterprelation { l0l) (i)). we rnight like to bear in mind
might be either thc, woman or thc childlen *'ho have ringer hair. And on that
the principle ol'structural svmmetr\" which Ruion Wells invoked in his iina-
colourlirl note. we"ll conclude our disc-ussion ot'postnornrnal n-rotlifiers! lysis ot' tltt king ttl Englattd (recall that he rvantcd to treat this as structurally
parallel to the Englislt klrg). What this means is that we'd like to make our
You should now be able to tackle exercises l. ll, lll, lV, and V anafysis of (l0l) a Cumbridge Ph.tsi<'.s student as close to our analysis of
(l0l) (i) ltt student ol Ph.tsits (u'/ro ls) ur Canthridgel as possible. So, let's start
4.1 Nominalpremodifiers hy looking at the internal structure ol'(102) (i), i-enoring the n'ralerial in paren-
So llr. our 61..g55itrrr hirs been limited to the syntax ol- posutornr- theses. Civen all the arguments we pLrt fbrward in the previous section,
( 102) (i) will have the structure ( 103) below:
rral motiifiers. But what irbout prenonlirrrrl modifiers'l We shall argue that there
are three structufallv distrnct classes of nominal premodi{ier, namely (i) {10-l)
Deterntiners, (ti) ('onrplemerrr.r, and (rir). Attrihures (this hst term is borrorved -,_'-N -_.\
D. - N-
liom Bloomfield
cnt classes of
I93-5.
premodifier
p firrther argue that these three difl'er-
195). We shall
have the different structural properties described in ' .Nr-
t-' IPP--
(100) below:
"
N'
,,. .-,.'- -\_
'zat Cantbridge:
(i) | ,.' -PP-\.-:
(100) Dett,rminers expar)d N-bar into N-double-bar student zof Phvsics

196 t97
Noun Phrase:; .\ rtttrirtul ltrdtt'uliht'r.t 4.

And it should (by nou,l) be obvious to )'ou that the PP [o/ Plr'.rlc.s] in (103) is a
Conrplernent (hence modific-s N). u'hereas lhe PP [ct Canthridge) is an Adjunct
(hence modifies N-bar). We can provide sonre enrpirical support for the ana-
lysis in 1103) iry standard cor)stitu!-nt stnrcturr 'tesls': for example. (103) specr-
fies that sturlott is an N. f.rtudcnt o/'P[.r'.rir's] is arr N-bar. and fstudcnt ol
Ph.t'.sic.s at Cantbridgt) is also an N-bar. Therefore, the analvsrs predicts thirt
the latter two constituerlts (hut not the fornrcr) can be replaced by thc pro-N-
bar orte'. and as (10.1) beiow illustrates. this is indcetl the case:
( 104) (a) \\/hich [stucent oi Ph1'sics]? The turc at Camhridgc?
(b) Which [student of Ph1'sics at Carntrridgel? This nrc?
(c) Which [studentl? *The ,:vrc of Plr\,s cs at Cambridge?
So. the analvsis in ( 103) above seerns to produce the right results.
Now, wr- want to attain rnaximirl structural synlmetr-v bctrveen (l0l)
if
[a Carnhridgc P/r.r'.iir'.s .rrudcntf and (10-])fa.sruilL,nt ol Ph.t.tic.r at (-onthridgel.
then the natural suggestion to nrakc'is thlt P/r.r'.sir'.r in t l0l ) sheruld hc anall,scd
as a Complernent. and Carrthridgc ls an Attribute (recall that Attributes are
the prenomirral counterlrart of Adjunctsl. In other rvords. our strut'tural srnr-
nrelrl principle l'ould suggest that ( l0l ) should be assigned the structure ( 105)
below:
fl05)
-r' ____--\a,
NP---- -z r'\.
l
We nlrke the Attribute Rule (106)(ii) optional because not all Noun Phrases
contain Attlibutc's: and we rnake thc NP Cornplcntc-t1t in (106)(iii) optional
br'cause not all head Nouns hnve NP Conrplemertts.
Horvever. ivhile it',r'ould obviously he c-xtrenrelv satisfying ilrve rvere to be
able to establish structural st'ntntetrv be'tween the prenturinal and post-
nonrinal Phrascs in t 103)anct ( 105) ahove. clearly rve neetl to base or.rr analvsis
in ( lil-s) on sLrre firnrcr foundation than a trerc dcsire to firrd structural sym-
nrr-tfv So. whal e'.iclence is there that (105) is the right analvsis lor (101)
l,a Canhrrl.gc P/r.r'..r,.t .studt'rtt')) Wcll. part ol the r'r'idence comes from rvord-
orcler facts. For. u'c hlve already arglrec'l that Compientents must alwa,vs colne
closc-r to thciI lte:rcl Noun than Atljuncts (ii rve are trr:lvoid'crossing
b[anchcs'). And rf .lllrll,rrr'.s are th!- prellonlina) counterparts of Ad.functs,
thcn u,e should cxpcct that Corrplcrrcltts lnusl also conte closer to their Head
Noun than Attributes. Arrd this doc's irrdc-ed turn out to be the case. For as we
see frcrnr (107) he'lor.r. the Cornplement NP Ph.t'sir's must come closer to the
head Noun student than the Attributc'NP Calibrilge:
( l07) {a) aICanltridte] [P/rlsir'.il student
(b) *a
IP/r.r',sic'.s] lCarnhridgel student
Norv. ilrve pt-rsit tbat Comprlcment NPs are qenerated to the left of N (cf. the
Conrplcrnt'nt Rule tl06) (iii) aboi'e) whereas Attribute NPs are generated to
the le'ft of N-bar (cf. the Attribute Rule (106)(ii) above). then it should be
obviolrs rvhl (107i(h) is ungrammatical: lbr. the only wa-1.- in which we can
gerrr-rate a structuri- like tl07)(b) in rvhich the Attribute NP is closer to the
Head Noun llrarr thc Complement n-P is to allorv'crossing branches'as in

Crnrbridge' \P '' \-*

( l0S) bc-low:
Pt',nlsi.. ,,u,I.n,
( rori)
D" -/ ---N-..-.-
-i!--\

(For didactic reasons. \\'c use the label NP lor rr-oun Phrases r.t'hose internal
structure is not the focus of our interest, and which *e choose not to rcpre- NP
-\
'-N'
sent. and N" or Noun
f Phrases whosc structure \re $,ant the rcacler to concclt-
tp---- -;----
i
trate on. and which we shorr'in sonte dc.tail: but recall that from a theoretical ll 11

viewpoint. NP and N" are equivalent terms.) Given rhe srructure (105). then Phvsics Cambridgc studen(
Pft.t'.slcs would be a Complement hecause it rs the sister ol the N srrrdou.
But a structure such as tl08tis ill-forrned because it violates our condition
rvhereas Cdntbritlec uoulci be an Attribute. because it js tht- sister (and
.!05)could tlr:rt branches shoul,l not he allowed to cross. By contrasl. there is no violation
daughter) of an N-bar. A structure such as { be gencrated b_v.- a set of
of the 'crossing briinches' condition in (10-5) above. so that we correctly pre-
Phrase Structure Rules such as (106) helow:
dict thet onlv the AttriLrute+Complenrent order iound in (105) is possible.
(106) (i) N - (D) N' [Determiner Rule: cL {75) (i)l not the Complenrent + Attribute order found in ( lOtt).
(ii) N' - NP N' [Attnbute Rule'. optimall A second argunrent in support ol-the analysis in (105) can be formulated in
(iii) N' * (NP) N [Compler"nenr Rule] relation to o,re-pro!lominalisation facts. For note that our analysis in (105)

198 r99
Noun Phruses N orrtirtul prenrodiliers 4.7

specilies that both fPhysit's studentlanJlCambridge Phvsics sturlenl] are N-bar example. if we apply the Determincr Rule ( I l2)(i). wc !:enerate the structure
constituents. whereas studen! is not (it is simply an N ). Given our assumption ( 1 l3) below:

thar one is a pro-N-bar, we theretbre predict that the lirst two ol these expres-
sions can be prolormed by one. but not the third. And as 1109) below illus- ( 1 I -1)
- -=-N
trates. this is indeed the case: D----"tN"
( 109) (a) Which [Physics student]? The Cambridge one'l
(b) Which [Cambridge Physics student]'l This one? lf'u,e now apply the optional Attribute Rule (lll)(ii)to r'xpand thc N-bar ln
(c) Which [student]'l *The Cambridge Physics onei' (I l3), we derive:

So, one-pronominalisation I'acts lend strong empirical support to our analysis. (ll4) N-__.-
_,,,---
A third argument in lavour of liom lacts about Sintple Co-
(105) comes
ordination. Given that both the sequences [Ph1'sics' student] and fCamhridge
NP'-- -)r- --N'
Pir.r'sit's studentl in (105) are assigned the status of N-bar, then we should
expect that both can be coordinated with another N-bar such as fhtttke.v
pl(r),erl: and as (l l0) below shows, this is indeed the case: But we can now re-apply the same Attribute Ruir- (ll2)(ii) to expand the
N-bar at the bottom of the tree in ( I 1-1). yielding:
( I 10) (a) a Cambridge fhocke.t' pla.r'er and P/r.r'sirs srudentl
(b) afhotke.t' plu.t,er an'J Cuttbritlge Ph.r,sit's srudentf
( il5)
N{oreover, while we can coordinate two Con.rplement NPs (as in (lll)(a)
belorv) or two Attribute NPs (as in (i I l) (b)), we cannot coordinate a Comple-
ment NP with an Attribute NP (hence the ungrammaticality of (ll1)(c)). or
an Attribute NP with a Complement NP (cL *( I I I ) (d)):
\- --N'

(l I I ) (a) several [Plrlrics] lnd [Cieruslr,rl studenls

(b) several [O,,r./ird] and lCanbrr'rlgel students And we can even re-apply the same Attnbute Rulc once more, again expand-
(c) *severill
[P/r,i'slt's] irnd lC a n h r itlge] students
t ing the lo*'est N-bar, therebl'derivins:
(d) *several
lCantbridgel and IPl,r'srts] students
ttotu)
So. it seems that Coordination lacts provide strong support lbr our analysis.
-'.* -=-
A fourth argument can be based on the difl'erent properties of the rules
introducing Complement NPs on the one hand, and Attribute NPs on the
other. The rules which $'e gave eirrlier in (106) above are repeated in (ll2)
N,-^>r...
tt-.......-
below: -u-t"

(l t2) (i) N" - (D) N' [Determiner Rule]

NP"''
( ii) 5' - NP N'[Atrribute Rule: optionulf
( iii) N' - (NP) N [Complement Rute] However, Iet's assume that at this point u'e get tired ol'playing the game of
repeatedly re-applying the same recursive rule, and instead choose to skip the
Note that the Attribute Rule (ll2) (ii) is recursive (since it has the symbol Attribute Rule (l12)(ii) this time and pass on to the Complement Rule
N-bar both in its input and in its output): thus, the rule predicts that in- (ll2)(iii). Now, if we choose to omit the optional NP Complement and in-
definitely many Attribute NPs can be stircked on top of each other. For stead choose to expand the lowest N-bar in (ll6) onlv as N, the resulting

200 201
 Noun Phrases Nominal premodi/iers 4.7

structure will be ( I l7) belorv (assuming insertion olappropriate items): going tol Instead. let's comment briefly on some aspects of the rules in (ll2)
rvhich rve have used to generate Complement and Attribute NPs: these rules
(r l7)
are repeated in ( I 2l ) below:
D-
I
(l2l) (i) N" ' (D) N'[Determiner Rule]
a
(ii) N' - NP N' fAttribute Rule: optionall
NP- (iiil }.,I' - 1NP) N [Cornplement Rule]

"ilidat. .irii'' NP
Canrbridgc
student
Attributei and we should expect that they can tre
Each of the NPs in ( I l7) is an
freely stacked on top of each other in any order (subject to stylistic. c'tc. re-
strictions). Arrd as ( I l8) beiow shows. this is indeed the case:
(l I8) (a) alCanthridge)(tigh qualitvl[nriddlc c/a.s.s] student
(b) a [C'anhritlge)firtiddle class]fhigh qualirt,]student
(c) alhigh qualitliCamhridgel[niddle c/as-r] student
N' The rules in (l2l) specifv that Determiners. Attributes. and Complements are
N
all optional constituents of a Noun Phrase: i.e. they tell us that the only con-
I stituent which an NP rnust contain is a head Noun. Let's see how we can use
our rules in t ll I ) to generate first an NP containing an Attribute but no Com-
plement, and secondly an NP contairring a Complement but no Attribute; and
let's exarnine the different structures assigned by the rules in these two cases.
If we apply the Deterrniner Rule (l2l)(i) - selecting the optional Deter-
miner - we generate the substructure (122) belorv:
(122)
,---'nN'---=-=\ N

(d) a|tigh tluulirt'll.middle cla.ssl[Cambridge] student If we now appl,v the optional Attribute Rule (I2 l) (ii) to ( I 22). we derive:
(e) a lntiddle r'1c.s.rl Uri,q/r qualitr)ICanthridgel student
(i) alnriddlc clas.rl[Cttnrhridgel[high qualirt)student (r23) N"
D--'-t -
So, our recursive Attribute Rule seems to make precisely the right predictions
(l Ieave to you the task of ri,orking out it1 ho* rnany different rvays the NPs in NP'-')>*--=--==*
( bl the pro-N-bar orrel).
I I8) above can be pronominalised
But now' let's compare the Attributc Rule with the Complement Ruie And if we subsequently' apply the Complement Rule ( l2 I ) (iii) - omitting the
( I I 2) (iii). repeated as ( I 191 frc-lou :
optional cornplement NP - we derive the structure (124) below (we have
inserted appropriate lexical items for the sake of clarity):
(lie1 N' ' ('NP) N [Cornplement Rulel
rlld\ _ N-__
We see from 1ll9) that the Complernent Rule is not recursive. so that \\'e pre- D.
/-,/ --.-....-*r'
dict that Complemerrt NPs cannot bc- rccursivelr- stacked: and (120) bc-low
.uP---'t-''\*
l

suggests that this is indeed the case:

I I

Canrbridee N
( 120) *a
IPl.t'.slc.s] [Ecorronrit.r] [.lqriculrure] student I

So. our analysis correctly preclicts that Attributes can be recursively stackecl
(cf. (li8) above). but not Complements (ci. (120) immediately above).
There seems little point in cataloguing more lnd nrore empirical evidence in
support of our proposal that prenorninal Complement NPs are sisters of N
and daughters of N-bar. whereas prenorninal Attribute NPs are both sisters
and daughters of N-bar. If I haven't convinced you by now, I'm obviously not
202
student
Given our earlier definition of an Attribute as a sister and daughter of N-bar.
then it is clear that Canfiridgc in (124) functions as an Attribute. Note that
both Cambridge student and .student in ( I 24) are assigned the status of N-bar,
so that we correctly predict that both expressions can be proformed by the
pro-N-bar one. as in:
203
Noun Phroses Nctminal prenrodifers 4.7

(125)(a) Which [(iarnbricige student]'l This one? ( I 29) (a) recruilment lo-l pe r sonne ll
(b) Which [student]? The Cambridge orrt"/ (b) llter onn
s e \ recruitment

So, our analysis seems to have strong empirical support. (130) (a) the appeal [Jbr charity)
But now let's use our rules in (l2l) to generate a rathef rJifl'erent type of (b) the [c'laritr,] appeal
strucrure. As before. we first apply the Determiner Rule (121)(i) to generate
(l3l) (a) reliel l.from Jbminel
the subsrructure (122) above. But this timc, we'skip'the Attributive Rule
(b) IJantinel relief-
( l2l ) (ii), and go straight on to the Complement Rule ( l2l ) (iii): if we select the

optional NP Complement, then trom ( 122) by application of the Complernent (I 32) (a) danrage fto the brain]
Rule we will derive the structure (126) below (assuming insertion of the rele- (b) [brain] damage
vant lexical items):
(133) (a) the investigati ons fint o fr audl
(126)
*t (b) the f.f r audl i nves ti ga tio ns

o---"t -
I *
I
,-"''-* --.-^-
(I 34) (a)
(b)
a lanlof Debbie Harrl'l
a[Dehbie Hurr.r'] fan

Physics student (135) (a) the allegations fof treacherv]

(b) rhe lr r e at h e r S'l al lega tio ns
Note that the sequencc [Pl}sit's studeiltf in (1]6) has the status of'N-bar, but
not sttulent (which is only an N). Hence, we correctly predict that only the And in much the same way, the postnominal PP Adjuncts in the (a) examples
fbrmer and not the latter can be profonned by the pro-NP ottt"- cf. below all have prenominal NP Attribute counterparts in the corresponding (b)
(127) (a) Which [Physics student]? This oae'l example:
(b) Which [student]] *The Physics orrrrl (I 36) (a) the shop lon the cornerl
(b) the [corner] shop
Thus, our analyses in ( 124) and (126) show lhat the NPs fu Cuntbridge student)
and [a Plrlslcs stutlent] are similar insotar as both the sequences lCumbridge (I 37) (a) the strike lin rhe shipvardl
sturlenrland [P&_r.sic.s stuclentf have the status of N-bar; but they differ in that (b) t he [slrrp-u-arrl] st ri k e

stu(lent in the case of [a Plr.t'slcs stwlent] has the status of N, *hereas student tn
(I 38) (a) the lady loJ'ironl
the case of la Cambritlge stu(leilllhas the status of N-bar. This lbllows tiom
(b) the Iirorj iady
the observation we made earlier that an N which has an overt Complement
has the status of N. rvhereas an N which lacks a Complement has the status of ( r 39) (a) the bridge lttver the river)
an N-bar dominating an N. And we have already secn that our analyses in (b) the [nver] bridge
(124) and (126) make precisely correcr predictions about (,rc-plononrinalisa-
tion facts.
(I 40) (a) a keyboard lf\r a tYPev'riterl
(b) a ft.r,p e w r i te rf key board
In this section, we have argued that just ils some postnominal PPs lunction
as complements to Nouns, and others as Adjuncts, so too sLrme prenomtnal (lal)(a) a sauce fv,ith crearnl
NPs function as Complements to Nouns. and others as Attributes. In lact, the (b) a [r'ream] sauce
parallel between posrn ominul PPs and prenominal N P.s is a very close one. For
(l42) (a) teaflfrom Chinal
example, all the postnominal PP complements in the (a) examples below have
(b) lChinaltea
prenominal NP Complemenr counterparts in the correspouding (b) example:
(I 43) (a) the weather lin winterl
(128) (a) the ban lon pornograPhrl
(b) thelrinterl weather
(b) thefpornograplr-ulban
205
204
Noun Phrases N ontinal premodifier.s 4.7

lt thus sec'ms clear that prenomtrtitl NPs are the naturrtl counterpart of pgsl- t 147) (a) a lover [pp of [51p c/assical nwsi<'il
nominal PPs. (b) a I1',ip c/a,ssica/ lrrr.ricl lover
The two are not completely equivaletrt however. There are obvious syntac-
But lct's see w'hat happens if \,\'e try to do the same in the case of the itahcised
tic differences between the two: prenlodifiers have the status of NP and pre-
NP in (148) belol:
cede the N-bar they modify. whereas postmodrfiers have the status of PP and
follow the N-bar they modify. l\,loreover. this syntactic difference is reflected ( l'18) a lover [pp of [5p tfic operall
in parallel semantic differences. To be nrore precise. the semantic relatioll
What ive'd expect to get is ( 149) below:
between a prenominal NP and thr'N-bar it rrodifies is much more |a,gut'(ancl
has to be inferred from pragmatic clues) than in the case of a postnominal PP. 149) *a
( [1gp the opera] lover
By way of example, consider a pirrase such as the fo)Jouing:
But. as -u-ou can see. we don't gct this: instead. we have:
(144) the lp rop or t i on a I re pr t sen I alirrnl c:rm pai gn
(1501 an [Np o])eral lover
The bracketed prenominal NP in ( 144) has tu,o very different postnorninal PP
Wh-v'l What's going on here? Well. there seems to be sonte restriction to the
counterparts: cf.
effect that prenominal NP Complements cannot contain a Determiner. More-
(145) (a) the campaign Lfor lroPortionul rcpre'tentationf trver. examples such as (l5l) below sugge-st that the same restriction operates
(b) thecampaign [agaittst proportioilal represeiltatioilf in the case of Adiuncts anti Attributes:

The difference between (144) and (14-5) is that the postnominal modifier in ( l5l) (a) a.'the'this strike [pp in [.',{p l/re shipvard])
(145) contains a Preposition whose semantics specifies the relation benveen (b) *aithe/this
[pp t/rc -sllp.r'ardl strike
the Head Noun and the NP lltroportionul reJ)retentatiotl]: but in (144) there is (c) a/the,'this[xp.s/riplord]strike
no Preposition, and hence no additional semantic information' so that the
exact relationship betweerr fpropttrtiona! representaliotrl and cantpaigrr has to
Tlre exact nature of the restriction is anything but clear. lt seems that only
be inferred on the basis ol pragmatic clues (i.e. knowledge of the rvay the sruir' knrds of Deterrlinel are barred from occurring in Attribute NPs, and
world is). Thus, the two brackcted NPs in (146) below are likely to be rnter- that otlrcr.r can indeed be usecl in this lunction. 'l-hus. in the lbllowine
preted very differently: exarnples:

( 146) (a) Nancy Reagan's [drrg.d campaigtr (151) (a) thc- [,4// India] radio station
(b) Ronald Reagan's lre-electionl campaign
(b) an [a1l points] brrlletin
(c) a [/ral,t franre] camera
Our knowledge of the views of the individuels concerned helps us inierpret the (d) the president's [ro cornprornise] policl,
N-bar [dnigs cantpaign] as paraphraseable by' 'campaign ag,ainst drugs' in (e) anftach u'ayl bet
(la6) (a). but 'campaign.lbr re-electron' (e.g. of his own part-v-) in (146)(b). (f ) an [rrn.t topic-] discrrssion
And -r,our knowledge of Syntax should (by nou') enable you to work out for (g) an [r'r,crl week.'ndl girl
yourself whether the bracketed Phrases in (144-6) above are Complements.
Attributes. or Adjuncts! the italicised constjtuents nright be argued to be Deterrniners. so discounting
There are also other important differences betrveen nominal prenlodifiers the possibilitv trf a 'blanket restrictitrn' against the use of Determiners in pre-
and postmodifiers. For example. generally speaking it seems to be that an NP ntrnrinal NPs. it would secnr that Articles (Lt. tlre\ and Demonstratives (lllsl
which is part of a postnominal PP can alternatively be positioned in front of tlntitlrc.r<,ithosc) are barred fronr occurring in attrihute NPs. wheress Quanti-
the nominal which it modifies. Thus. the italicised NP contained within the fiers fikc. evr.t'irachiulllbothlhal./'lan)'i.sontetno. etc. are not. Quite why thrs
bracketed PP Complement in (147)(a) below can alternatively be positioned shouicl bc is not a question rvhich need concern us here (OK . . . I'll admit that
prenominally, as in ( 147) t b): I always say that when I don't knorv the answer to my own question!)

206 20'7
Noun Phrases Adjectival premodiliers 4.8

and ilattributive Adjectival Phrases seem ro be structurally parallel to atrrib-

You should now be able to tackle exercise Vl
utive Noun Phrases, then we might propose to generate Attributive APs by a
parallel rule such as (161) below:
4.8 Adjectivalpremodifiers
Thus far, all the examples of Attributes which we have considered
( I6l) N' - AP N'[Attribute Rule optional]
have involved attributive NPs. But other categories can be usecl in an attribut- Moreover, it may well be that we can conflate our two Attribute Rules (160)
ive tlnction as well. The commonest class ol Attributes are APs (Adjectival and (16l) above into a single rule. How? Well, recall that in Chapter 3 we
Phrases): for example. the bracketed expressions in ( 153) below are attributive argued that categories are analysable into matrices (:sets) of syntactic
APs: features, so that (e.9.):

( l-s3) (a) alreull.r e-v< e//entl fihn (162) Noun:[+N, _V] Adjective:[+N. +V]
(b) a [lro.r/ entartainingf evening
Thus, Noun and Adjective might be argued ro lbrm a supercaregory of [+ N]
(c) a [tl e I i g h t,fu I l.t' m.r's t e r i ttusf st ranger
eiements. And in the same way, we might say thar NP and AP form a corres-
(d) afputenth obllousl lie
ponding phrasal supercategory which we might designate as [+NP] (i.e. a
In many cases, attributive APs alternate with attributive NPs: for example, phrasal constituent with a [+ N] head). Given these assumptions, then our two
each of the (a) examples below involves an NP attribute which has an AP Attribute Rules ( 160) and ( I6l ) could be conflared as ( 163) below:
attribute counterpart in the corresponding (b) example: N'
(163) - [+ NP] N'[Attribute Rule: optional]
( 154) (a) thefEnglandl football players If we incorporate our generalised Attribute Rule ( 163) into our earlier system
(b) the [Engirslrj lootball players ofrules in ( l2l) above. our revised set ofrules becomes ( 164) below:
( 155) (6) a[Puris] nightclub ( r64) (i) N" + (D) N'[Determiner Rule]
(b) aIParisianlnightclub ( ii; N' - [+ NP] N'[Attribute Rule: optional]
( iii) N' - (NP) N [Complement Rule]
11 56) (a) a [nretal] finish
(b) a [rnercilir'] linish Now. since our revised Atrribure Rule (164) (ii) is recursive, it predicts
(amongst other things) that Noun Phrases can conrain indefinitely many
(157) (a) alprestigel project stacked attributive APs: and this does indeed seem to be the case, as (165)
(b) afprestigiouslproject belorv illustrates (where each of the bracketed constituents is an attributive
(158) (a) the Ir'urlcr] weather AP):
(b) the [l'lztr,rl weather ( l6,s) (a) afhandsontel srranger

Moreover, the following example (taken lrom conlidential University papers!)

(b) afdark]fhandsomelstranger
(c) a[tall]fdark]fhandsonte]stranger
shows that an attributive AP can be conioined with an attributive NP:
(d ) an lin telligentl[talll[dark]lhandsorne] stranger
(r59) Any change is bound to have numerous l6p acudenicl and [51p (e) etc.
cosl] implications
By way ol-illustration, let's see how our rules (164) would generate a Noun
So. there does seem to be an apparent parallelism between zrttributive NPs and Phrase such as (16-5) (cl[u tall dark hantlsonre strangerf. Applying the Deter-
attributive APs. miner Rule (164)(i) and selecting the Determiner oprion would generate the
Now, if attributive NPs are generated by rule (lll)(ii) above, repeated as structure ( 166) below:
(160) below:
(l60)
( r60) 5' * NP N' lAttribute Rvle: optiontll ,,-'"*\=n
208 209
 Adiectival pramodifiers 4.8
Noun Phrases
Nou,. thc structure (170) predicts that the sequences stranger. lhartdsome
Applying the Attribute Rule ( 164) (ii) to ( 166). and selecting AP as our [+ NP]
str(tngcrf. ldttrk handsonrc srrangerl. and ftall dark handsome stranger] ate all
category. will yield ( 167) below:
N-har constituents. Among the predictions we therefore make is that each of
1167 1 n...--.------=.'._ these can be prolormed bv the pro-N-bar orc: and (l7l) below shows us that
this prediction is exactl-v correct:
D_------ -s' '-.--.----...-
AP/ n ( 1 7l I ta) \l'hich [stranger]? The tall dark handsome orre?

(b) Which [handsonre stranger]?'fhe talldark orre?

Reappl.ving the same rule in the same wav to the lower N',in (167) rvill then (c) Which [dark handsome strangerl? The tall orre?

derive ( 168) below:

(d) Which [tai1 dark handsome stranger]? This one?

(16xI So. it woulcl appear that the structurai parallels betrveen attributive NPs and
\\ :rttril.rutive APs are quitc. stlkirrg: bttth can be used to rectrrsively expand
D------" _-_,___\- N-bar inttr l"\-'oar.
AP.. No*'. if we are corr"ect in positing that both NPs and APs can be used as
or-"'))*=-. Attnbutes (hence can recursir,ely expand N-bar into another N-bar), then it
follows that we should expect that two different kind of Attributes can be
recursively- stacked on top of each other in any order- We can demonstrate this
Applying the same Attribute Rule in the same fashion once nlore to erpand
bv the free relalive ordering oithe NP and AP Attributes in (172) below:
the lowest N-bar in (168) r,r'ill qive us ( 169) belo$':
ilTl)(a) a [6p -/ryorresc] h,tp rorJ [5pp/a.rlic] duck
1169| b) ./apauc,rc] [51p p1a^rric] [51p to.rJ duck
,--/ --,N--.--. -_-\ ( a [4p
D--
A> At''-'
(c)
(d )
(e)
(f)
a
a
[1p
[NP
I lSp .lapanese] [1p p/osric] duck
ro.r

l [5p p/asric] [4p "/uparrc'se] duck

/o-]

a [6p p/asric] [ Sp Japane sef [ir1p tor'] duck

a [iqp p/tr.sricl [pp /olJ [4p .,raparre-se] duck
---N'
,\Pt
Thus. word order facts provide striking support fcrr our analysis: they are
exactlV as predicted. I leave you to verif)' for l'ourself how man.v. different ways
Finally, if we apply the Comrrlement Rule ( 164) (iii) to expand the lowest N' in
(169) into N. the result uill be (170) below (rve have inserted the relevant fa.Iapancse 1p.1, pla,stic r/ut'k] can he prononrinalised by one: think about it.
nert timc you play rvith vour to-n.' duck in the bath (if you don't have a toy
rvords ftrr illustrative purposes: olcourse. AP rvill have lurthel internal struc-
duck. tr tov boat g{s. nill do just as well).
ture, but this need not concern us for the time being):
we have argued in this section that APs can function as prenominal Attri-
(17{)) btrtes: but recall that rve argued at the end ofsection 3.6 above that APs can
'--Nl--_
also be usc-d as postnominal Adjuncts. Indeed. itt certain types of construc-
Dt' l)t '.-- titrn. ,{Ps of a given class can bc positioned either pre- or post-nominally: cf.
I -'/ --\-..-
a \P-- the following examplcs from Quirk et a/ ( l9l1-5. pp. 418 -29):

,1,, AP".' (I l-1) (r) the best [7ro,r.iihll use

dark .\P''" (b) the best usc- [Poisil'/c]

I

handsomc N ( I 741 141 the greatc'st [inrrrgrirahlel insult

strange r
(b) the greatest insult IirrraerTraile]

2il
I1(l
Noun Phrases ,.lljettiwl prctnodit'iers 4.8

(175) (a) the best [rryrrllrrble] person L,nglish has t*'o different categorial lunctions in (183). On the first interpre-
(b) the best personluvuilub[e] tation (=sc)nleone who teaches English). English functions as a Noun, and
( 176) (a) hence can be modilied bv an Adiective. as in ( i 35) below:
the only [srlta6le] rlctor
(b) the only actor [suirrrble] (I 85) (a) an INp Old English] teacher
But there are extremely complex restrictions on when APs can or cunnot be (b) a Ii;p llnlrl/t, English] teacher
(c) a [5p Nol Englislt] teacher
used prenominall_t", and when they can or canl.rot be used postnominally: thc
examples below illustratc some of the restrictions concerneo: On the second interpretation (:a teacher rvho is Englishl, English functions
(liil (a) He has a fsinilar)car as an Adjective. and hence can be rnodilied b_v- an Adverb. as in (186) below:

(b) *He has a car lsimilurl (186) (a) a[6p t.r'pit'ullr English] teacher
(178)(a) He has a fsimilar thttugh subtl.r'lifl'erenr)car (b) a [4p lerl Englislt] teachet'
(b) He has a car fsinilur though suhtl.r li.tlercntl (c) alp^p disuppoittting!.r' Englislrl teacher
( 179) (a) He has a fsitttilur enttugh) clrr So.partof the irnrbiguityof'[arr Englishteutht'rlliesinthecategorial statusof
(b) He has a car fsinilur encughf English. which can either be a prt-'nomrnal NP. or a prenominal AP: cf.

1180) (a) He lras I Ilitirl.r sinilur)car

( ltiT) (a) an [Np English] teacher ( - someone who teaches English)
(h) an [.{ p English) teacher ( : a teachcr who is Enghsh)
(b) He has a car [.luirlt' sirttilttrf
But this is only part ot'the story. I suppose you'd already guessed that the
( l8 I ) (a) *He has a fi,erv' similar indeed) car
ansrver couldn't be that simple! But why not?
(b) He has a car Ir,er.r, sitttilttr irLleedl
Well. what rve're going to argue is that when lun English teacherl means
( 182) (a) *He has afsimilar to ninef car 'sorneorle who teaches English'. then the prenorninal NP lirglrrl is a Comple-
(b) He has a car fsirnilar to ntinef ment: but when the NP means'a teacher who is English', theprenominal AP
(c) Fle has a fsimilar] car fto ntine) English rs an Attribute. Now. if l'm right (am I ever wrong'l). then it fbllows

We are not here going to attenlpt to unravel the conrplex syntactic and stl,listic
that thc' N P [rrl .trrg/is/r reucherl could have either of the two structures in ( I 88)
below:
factors which determine the position of APs used to ntodif y N-bars: rhe inter-
ested reader should consult a good reference grammar such irs Quirk cl rrl. (I 88) ta) [
: a person rvho teaches English]
{ r 985).

Well, I know 1,ou'd w:rnt me to end the chapter on a high, so I'll concludc "t-.-- ',
with an argument of'your lavourite tvpe - re lating to struttural arribrguit.r'. No.
D---'t
don't groan - this one is quite straightlorward. Consider the Noun Phrase in NP-,,-->N -=- N
(183) below:
"," I

English teache r
(183) an English teacher (b) l: a person who teaches. and ir'ho is Englishl
This is ambiguous in a fairly obvious way between the lwo interpretations
represented by the paraphrases in ) below:
( I 78
D-t -/*t..-.--
(184) (i) someone who teaches English
-.\N'-- \"
(ii) someone who teaches, and rvho is English
un AP'-''
I

English N
Now, it seems plausible to assunre that rhe source oi rhe ambiguity ot' ( l8l) is I

strucntral in nature, and that part of the ambiguity rclirtes to the fact that teacher

2t2 213
 Noun Phra,ye.r .1dit'rtit'ul Prunolilter.s 4 8

(I
ieave you to work out for yourself *'hich of our rules in (164) apply to
generate each of the structures in ( I88).) Now. the analysis in { I 88) has a cer-
tain amount ol .tcmantir plausibility. After all. if we accept the claint lcitcd
earlier) by Hornstein and Lightfoot ( l98la. p. 2l ) that 'each N-bar specifies a
sennntic propertf , then lrom the lacr that (188)(a) contajns onlv the single
N-bar [ErrglriD teacher], it follows that ( 188) (a) rvill atrribure only one seman-
tic property to the person concerned. namely that (slhe teaches English. But
support of the structur:rl amhiguity rcprc'sented in (188) above' For. just as
ilifl'ercnceS ol s1'ntactic strtlcttlrC ctrrrelate rvith differerrccs Ol' semanttc Struc-
ture (i.e. nreaning). so too we rnight expect thern to correlate wifh phottologicol
differences. And this is precisely what rve find. For if you think about it. you'll
realise that the phrase lan Errglish reacherl has trvo different stress patterns.
nanrely tlrosc represented in I 192) below (u,here the s1'llables receiving primary'
stress are (:APlTAl,lsED ):

by the same token. the fact that (188)(b) conrains trvo N-bar constiruents.
( 19:) (i) an ENglish teacher
namell' lteacharl and IErr,g/rs/r teacher). entails that tl88) (b) will attribute two
properties to the individuai conccrned. namelv (i) rhar (s)he teachc-s. and (ii)
(ii) an ENglish TEAcher

that (s)he is English. And il vou rhink evcn harder. you'll realise that the t$'o different stress
However, the proposed analysis also has independent s,r.ntacti( support. patterns correspond to the twc-r different interpretations in (184) above: that is,
Well. I won't bore you wrth a rvhole battery'ol'svntactic argumcnts in support (ls2)(i) means,solneone who teaches E,nglish" whereas (192)(ii) means'a
of our analysis. Let's.1urt look at onc such argument. relating to trord-ortler teacher who is English'.
lacts. Consider a sentence such as thc- follorvine: Now. why shouic! the two different str!'ss patterns in (192) be associated
(189)
with two different nreanings? Well. let's assume that just as each n--bar in a
I think it rvould bc crazv ro emplol'la Frcnch Engtish reaclrcrf
sentence is a .rannnric rrtril (recall Hornstein and Lightfoot's ( l98l a. p. 2l) ob-
Just think about what ( i 39) means: does ir mean ( 190) (i) heloiv. or ( ig0) (ii)? servirtion that'each N-bar specifies L\ scmanlic Properry'1. so too each N-bar is
(190)(i) I a phttnolog,it'al unrt. More specificall-v. let's assume that thc rule for primary
think it rvould be crazv to empioy a French person to teach
stress assignnrent in English is along the lines gir,en very irrformally in (193)
English
(ii) I think it rvould below:
be crazl,to ernplol.an English person ro teach
French ( r9l) Assign a sL'parate prirnary stress to each separate N-bar (i.e. to an
a;rpropriate sy'llable of an appropriate u'ord in each N-bar)
well. I think ir's prett!'clear thar rhe NP [a French Engli.rh rearhcr]can only be
interpreted along the lines of (190)(i) as'a French person who teaches Ifwe look at the two structures assigned tofan English teacher)in (188) above.
English', and not along the lines of (190) (ii) as'an English person,*.ho teaches we see that the N-bar constituents which each contains are as in (194) below:
French'. But il you think about it, that's cxacrly what our analysis in (1E51 :
( 19.1) (a) an [p' En,g/rs/r teacher] ( Complement:'someone who teaches
predicts. For, as we ha',e ncted mirnv limes. our rules specify that Comple-
English')
ments alwal's come closer to their Heads than Attributes/Ad,iuncts. Thrs
(b) an [}\l' ^irrglrs/r [l\' teacher] I (: Attribute:'someone who teaches
means that when we have a prenonrinal Attribute and a prenonrinal comple-
u'ho is English')
ment associated with the sarne Head Noun. thev u,ill occur in the order:
And our Stress Rule ( 193) above will accordingl-v assign prirnary stress only to
( 19i) Attribute+ ConrDlenrent * Noun the (first syllable of the) word English in ( I 94) (a)' but to (the first syilable ol)
Thus, in a sequence such as fFrench Et:glish teacher]. since Dlgli.rir is clcser to both the worcls Englr.slt and reacher in (194)(b). Thus, it seems clear that
the Head Noun Ieoclrcr. ii nlust be a complenrc-nt. and since F'clclr is further
phonological lacts provide strong independent empirical support for our
away from teacher, it must be an Attribute. Flence. u'e correctly predict that claim rhat fan Eng!i.tlt tt:acherl exhibits the structural ambiguity characterised
the only possible interprcration forfa French r.n.qli,th reacherfis'a person wh<r in (188) above. So. it's nice trr find that an analysis which has syntactic and
scntantic plausibilit-1 turns out to have independent phonological motivation
teaches English who is French'. so our analysis not only has sernantic pl:rusi-
bitity; but in addition it has in.lependent syntactic sLrpl_.ort.
But what is even more exciting is thet there is also phonologlcni cviclence irr
You should now be able to tackle exercises Vll - Xl4

at I
215
Noun Phruses E rercisgs

4.9 Summary EXE RCI SES

The general aim of this chapter has been to provide empirical Exercise I
support for the claim that there is a type of nominal constituent which is larger It might be argued that the bracketed Prepositional Phrase in (l) below is
than the Noun but smaller than the Noun Phrase. In 4.2 we examined Rulon a Cornplenten!. whereas that in (:) beiow is ln Adjun(t.
Wells' claim in 1947 that the NP [tle king o.l' Englancll has as one of its imme-
(l) the discussion l0.l th( rio$l
diate constituents just such a'small nominal phrase', [king o.l'England]: and we the discussion lin the burl
proposed to adopt Chomsky's bar-nolatiort f or such cases. whereby lrlng is an
N, [k,ng ol Englandl is an N-biir, and [tie king oJ England] is an N-double-bar. Given this assumption, what structure would be assigned to each o[the Noun Phrases
in (l) and (2), and what rules would be neccssary to generate the relevant slructures
In 4.3 we produced empirical evidence in support of the proposed analysis,
(show each individual step in the derivation)'l
based on Coordination and ore-pronominalisation ibcts. In .4.4, we argued
Show how the assumption that the bracketed PP is a Complement in (l) but an
that N-bar has a crucial role to play in differentiating two diferent classes of
Adjunct in (2) would account lor the following contrasts (assuming the grammaticality
postnominal modifier * Complerneni PPs (which are sisters of N and judgments given):
daughters of N-bar), and Adjunct PPs (which rtre borh sisters and daughters of
( 3) (a ) *The discussion ol the match was more animated than lhe one of the riots
N-bar). ln 4.5 we looked at how to deal with the oprionality of Determiners,
(b) The discussion at the match was more animatcd than the one in the bar
Adjunct PPs, and Complement PPs in Noun Phrases. In 4.6 we presented
further evidence in support of the structural distinction drawn between post- (4) (a) Tlre discussion of the riots and of their implications was full and liank
nominal PP Conrplements and PP Adjuncts. In 4.7 we argued in tbvour of (b) The discussion at the match and in the bzrr was full and tiank
positing a parallel structural distinction tbr premodiliers between Comple- (c) *The discussion of the nots and in the bar was full and fiank

ment NPs (which expand N into N-bar), and Atrrihute NPs (which recursively
{ ,s )
) (a The disc ussion ot' the riots in the bar was full and iiank
expand N-bar into N-birr). In 4.8 rve argued that not only NPs, but also APs (b) *The discussion in the bar of the riots was fuil and liank
can llnction as Attributes, and accordingly we gerleralised our Attribute Rule
to allow [+ NP] phrases (i.e. NPs and APs) to function as Attributes.
(6) {a) The discussion s'as rather nrisleading in the document
(b) *The discussion was rather misleading ol'the document
We have summarised the various rules we have posited in this chapter in
(I 95) below. for your convenience. (7) (a) Which document did they ban the discussion of 'l
1b) *Which document did they ban the discussion in'l
(195) (i) N" - (D) N'[Determiner Rulel
(ii)(a)N * N' PP[Adjunct Rule: optionol) +
Exercise II
(b)N' - [+ NP] N'[Arrribure Rule: optional] Discuss the syntax of the bracketed Nt'un Phrases in the following sen^
(iii) (a)N' - N (PP) [PP Complement Rule] tences, presenting empirical arguments to support your analysts:
(b)N' - (NP) N [NP Complemenr Rule]
il) I met [a.rpeciulist inJibreopri<sJrom Paritl
As we have already scen. the Determiner Rule ( 195) (i) has to apply. if we want (l) lThe girl on the stag,e inyunsl is ir friend of mine
r ll [Thejournel'Jrom Puris to Rome on Sunday] was tiring
to generate a Noun Phrase; the Adjunct Rr.rle (195)(ii)(a) and the Arrribure
Rule (195)(ii)(b) are optional; and one of the two Complemenr Rules (4) lThe ban ttn belts with studs in the schooll has caused a lot ofresentmenl
(195) (iii) (a) or (b) must also apply if we are to generate a properly terminared
(5) lThe girl ut the disto last weekl rang me up yesterday

subtree (i.e. an NP which terminates in an N-node). Now discuss possible dilierences in structure between the bracketed NPs in (6) and (7)
below:
(6) She's funo t he r .[r ie nd oJ' M a r.r']
(7) She's lano t he r Ji iend oJ M u r y' sl

(For the purposes of this exercise, simply assume that of Mary and oJ'Mur1:.r are PPs,
and don't concern yourselfwith the internal structure ofthese PPs.)

216 2t7
Noun Phrases E.rercist's

*Exercise III How u'ould these problenrs be overcome ifwe assumed a general CLAUSAL EXTRAPOSI-

ln the text, s'e L'onsidered onlv onc analysis of lthe king of Englandl- rroN rule along the lines of:
Evaluate this analysis against the two alternaiive analyses given in (1 ) and (3) be)ow:
(1) Anl pe.stnominal Clause (i.e. NCC or RRC) can be extraposed to the end
(l) of the minimal Phrase or Clause containing it
o--"t^T-.--.------..-.0
I

the king -iiE"n1.))=

+
Exercise l'
(l) For the purposes of the exercise. assume that the Determiner an.t' (in its
'... -NP- --PP eristtntiolfunction. s,here it is simiiar in meaning to'some') is subject to the following
NP-
z-.."
-\ .#"r*-;= restnctlon:
rhe king -:
(l) lnr mustbeprecededandc-commandedbyanegattve

*
(Recall that in Erercise IV of Chapter 3. we suggested a similar restriction to the effect
Exercise Iy''
that rl,cr ntust be preceded and c-commanded by a negative.) Show how a restriction
The discussion in the text ignored c/al.scl postmodifiers. We might sup-
just as posinominal Prepositional Phrases can function either as Comple- such as (l) above rvoulci account lor the (un)grantmaticality ofexislential an-1, in the
pose that
bracketed NPs in the foliou,ing examples. concentrate only on the structure of the
ments or as Adjuncts. so too can postnominal Clauses. For example. we might argue
bracketed NPs, ignoring the rest of the senlence for the purposes of the exercise. As-
that the bracketed postmodifl,ing Clause rn (l)(a) belou'is a Complement of the head
sume that no and lcclr are'negative'constituents in the requisrte sense, and assume the
Noun c/ar'lr. whereas that in (1) (b) is an Adjunct:
grammnticality judgments given.
(l) (a) the claim fthat you made a mistake]
(b) the claim lthat vou madcl
(2) (a) [,\'o knrg of anr cotmtr.tl abdicated
(b) I Nr, A-lrrg of an.r'
intp o r I ance] abdicated
This correlates with the traditronal distinction drawn bet*een Noun Contplemenl (c) [,\o A-irrg of anv couttr.r'of an.t'importttttc] abdicated
C/au.res(NCC) such as that bracketed in ( I ) (a), and Re.rtrictive Relatite C/auscs (RRC)
(3) (a) [The lack olany'discrpline in some schools] worried them
such as that bracketed in ( I ) (b). The two different types olClause have differing lexical t[The i:ck ofdiscipline in any schools] rvorried them
(b)
properties: for exarnple. the pa:-ticle !hat ca'n be replaced by an appropriate wh-pro-
(c) [Tl:e lack ofteachers with any qualifications] worried them
noun such as which or omitted altogether in Relative Clauses like (l) (b). but not in
Noun Complement Clauses such as (1 ) (a): cf. r\ssume that no. cnr'. and ,sorne all hane the categorial status of Determiners (more pre-
cisely. they belong to the subset of Determiners called Quantifiers).
(l) (a) the claim lthat.i*xhicht+O you made a mistake]
Shou,how facts such as these could be used as the basts for an argument supporting
(Noun Complement Clause)
the structural distinction we have drawn in the text between Complements and Adjuncts.
(b) the claim lthartx hichtO you madel
(Restrictive Relative Clause)

More importantlv, we might argue that the two types of Clause have diU'erent structural
properties, in that NCCs are Complements, whereas RRCs are Adjuncts. Show how * Exercise l'l
this difference might be represented in strr-rctural terms within the N-bar framework Discuss the ambiguity of the following NPs' and how it might be repre-
(assume that the bracketed Ciauses in (l) have the status ofS, but ignore their internal sented in structural terms. giving evidence in support of your analysis. What rules
structure): and present enrpirical arguments in suppcrt ofyour analysis. would be required 10 generate thg lglsvant structures?
Why would examples such as the following prove problematic for such an analysis?
(lt the house in the wood near the park
(3) (a) The claim which Reagan made that no arn'ls had been exchanged for hos- (2) a toy factor,v
[ages wai greeted uith scepticism G) a bfilss button holder
(b) The clairn has been reiterated that no arms were exchangr'd for hostages (41 the king oI England's PeoPIe

218 219
 Noun Phrases E.tcrt lse,

Exercise l'lI with England' (so that the phrase could mean all sorts ofthings, including
Show how the rules in rhe text would assrgn two diil'erent structures to 3n 'king born in England','king who tules over England','king who behaves
NP such as: in a typically English fashion'(as in'King Hussein of Jordan is the most
(l) the tall girl injeans
f.nglish king I've ever mei'). etc.).

corresponding lo the two (very subtl,v different!) interpretatior.rs in Discuss the structures assigned by each ofthese two uccounts to ( I ).
(l) belc)w:
What predictions would each of the two anal-vses (A and B) make about possible and
(2) (i) the girl in jeans who is tall impossible interpretations o[ English in the italicised phrases below, and why? Which
(ii ) the tall girl who is rvearing jeans set of predictions are correct, and what is the implication of this for each of the analyses
proposed'l
Discuss which rules would be needed to gcnerate the relevant structures. and how the_,
would apply. In addition, show how your analysis accounts lor the orre-pronominalisa- (l) (a) Why do philosophers always use examples involving a bald French king,
tion lacts in (3) below: rather than a bald Engli:h one'l
(3) (a)
(b) There's not much to choose between the present English and French
Were you talking to the tall [girl in jeans]. or rhe shorr ole )
kings, except that the French king is less bald that the firglrsft one
(b) Were,vou talking to the [tall girl] in jeans. or the crrrr in a miniskirtl
(4) (a) Henry Vlll is the best known fn.ginfi Protestunt king,
(b) ['e've hird relatively leu' Engltsh s.'ptuugenuridn kings
r Exercise YIII (c) Boedicea was the most lnmous Errglrsl pagun queen
Discuss the arnbiguity' ol'the lbllowing (o, Henry lV was the last English Irenth kittg

(l) an old French student

(2) the nuclear test ban treaty ** Exercise X
Much of'the justification for the analysis of Noun Phrases presented in the
How might it be represented in structural termsl \\ihat evidence is rherc is lavour ol
text rests on the assumption that (i) the antecedent of o'e is always a unitary consti-
your proposed analysis) And what rules would nced to appiy (how'l) ro general.e rhe
tuent. and (ii) it is an N-bar. Civen these (and Lrther related) assumptions, a phrase like
relevant structures'J
u big bl<tck dog will have lhe struclure ( I ) below:

r+ Exercise IX 0)
-'--N...----.-- -----\,,
A Noun Phrase such as U
.....---
-.-...--__-...-*.
(l ) the English king A.P..
.-_-- -,-'l\

uie
I

might be argued to be open ro the two interpretations paraphrased in (i) belo*:

1,/'
(2) (i) the king who rs English bleck T
(ii) the king of England doq
Compare and contrast the two ltrllowing accounrs (A and B below) of rhis'<iual inrer-
For speakers such as myself(and the late David Kilby, who first pointed out the prob-
pretation':
lem to me), sentence (2) (a) below can have either of the interpretations (2) (b) or (2) (c),
Anal.y'sis .4; u stru(tLtrul ambiguitl unalysis and sentence (3) (a) can have either ofthe interpretations (3) (b) or (3) (c):
On interpretation (2) (i) firgirrlr is an Attribute. whereas on inte rprel.ation
(2) (a) Jane has a big black dog. and Jean has a small one
(2) \ii) English is a Complement
(b) ...asmallblackdog
Anuly5i5 B: .t prdgnrdti( dnull.lir (c) ...asmall dog
On both interpretations, English is an Attribute: there rs no structural (3) (a) Jane has a big black dog. and Jean has a brown one
ambiguity. The relationship berween English and k ing is leli vague, so that (b) ...abigbrowndog
English king means more or less 'king connected in some unspecified way (c) ...abrowndog

220 221
 Lrert'i-sc.r
Noun Phra.sc.r
necesrarilv disr.:trous. 'Note that English spelling marks the diffcrence between thc two
Which interpretation of uhich sente nce provt's problentatic for the llssumptlons we afc
interpretations: on the restnctive inlerpretation. there are no punctuation marks ofany
nraking about t.,ne. and * h-"'? Can r-ou think of anl' rvay(s) in v'hich ue tlright tiefend the
sort separating the tu'o APs and r/i.sr1.t/roll'ti but on the appositive interpretation.
assulnptjon that orre is a pro-N-bar in the lace of such apparent counterevidence'? 71r.s1

the tuo APs arc septrated b1'a contma. a hyphen. or a brircket: cf.
HINT: l'ou might like to explorc'pragnlatic rather than purcll.s1'ntactic sc)lutlorls to
the problem.
tl) (a) rnl fiist disastrous m;rrriage: (I ): restrictive
(h) nrr first. disastrous. marriage: (21: appositive
Now consider the lollouing tuo dialogues: (c) my first (disastrous) nrlrriage: (!): appositive
(,1) sPEAKER e: Pilss me that picture over tllere
(d) nrr tlrst - tlisastrous nrarriage:(2):apposltlve
sPI'tAKER e: Which one? The one of a girl in e bikinil Of course. the nunciuation differences here rcffect intonational differences. What kind
(5) SPEAKER e: Pass me that picture over there of aciditional eli<ience nright be addircr.rl in support of (or :rgainst) such an analysis?
sPEr\KER s: \\'hich one? The one *ith a gold franrel Ancl hou'rvould our PS rules have tr: he revised so as to allolv for structures such as (2)
as u'ell as ( | )'l
Which reply' by Speeker B proves problentatic for the anallsis of nrrc given in the text.
and why?
** Iltercise XII
** Exercise XI l-eonartl Bloomfield in hrs t-lassic rvork Larlgtra,gc (19-15' pp. 20-1-6) recog-
In the text, we argued that multiple attributive APs are hierarchrcally' not nises the follt rving classes of I)elerrtirters:
linearly, stacked. But consider the alternative possibilitV that APs can he stacked ln
either waV onto an N-bar. givtng rise to possible structural ambiguities such as the lbl-
(I) (i) Definite Article llc and Indefinite Article a

lowrng:
(ii) L)cutrnslratiresrhis lltal thtse,'tltost'
(iiil Qr-rentifiers such as r'r'ert"elth all,rurris,trttclrto,tnan.t'intrtst,l/cx' etc.
(1) (ir') Ittlsrrogatives such as r',ltir'lt x'lat
--,,--N-...-.--.. (1,)
\.,- Cicnitrve(:possessiv(')NPslike thentlnilexl doar's,andthecorresnond-
D"t ''-----.----=-'"
| -:/ ,.-----\\
ing Prrssessi!c Pronouns rtr.t'l.r'olrrltir'icr. etc.
rny APt'
.\ In rhc tert. $. suggested that f)elernliners are non-recursive premodifiers which
tlist AP-' \' expand N-b:rr rnro bar. I)iscuss the apparent problems posed for this claim
l
^N-double
I
by the bracketed Phrascs in the exanrples beiou'. To u'hat extent can these problems be
di sastrou s N
I handled uithin cur eristing grammar. or do they require n.rotlifications to the grammar.
and if'so ofu'h;tt sortls)?

(l) ll{i.: nran.t'./ttttlts] can't be overlooked

(2) (2) l)on't c-\pect nrr'to indulge ltrwr cvr.t'vltintl
D-- (-r ) [,1/r'./ex rcal /rinttls] rvould ncver desert me
l
\N, (4) l.lll thc .,llrican contpctitors] have withdrawn
I
(.s ) lll'h,tt rt.si//r'/iroll he isl
I
I

N (61 There's [rrrar.1 o siip] twixt cup and lip

first d i sastrous
I
(7) You are lsuch an in.nffcruhlc horcl
marnaSe (8) TIre hole has Iloo 'tolrort on trperture]
{9) I'vr, ne'er <een [..n prrrlt !1 picturcl
This structural {iflerence might correlate with a semantic difference: thus. we nright
Suppose that drsrr.slrotr.r has a restrictive interpretation in (l), and an app(rsitive'inter-
** Exercisc XIII
pretarion in (l). On the restricti\.e interpretation (l ). thc phrase would be taken 1o implv
It is g,:nerall,v- assumed 1cf. e.g. Bloomfield's classification cited in Exercise
that I had other disastrous ntarriages: rvhereas on the appositive intcroretation (2). thc
phrase woul'l be taken as irnplying that i had other marriages. though the,y were not
XII) ihat Genitive (: possessivc) liFs lirnction solely as (non-recursive) Determiners in

:: -1
22?
Notu Phrases Exert'ises

English. Show rl'hat problems appear to be posed lbr this assumption by the bracketed (4) (a) my1.'-our gold one
NPs in examples such as those below: (b) 9'omy/your one

(l) nrr,lYutr /risl x'r,eA''.i /t,tler] was very in(eresting (5) (a) manylall old ones
/t\ (b) rmanyiall ones
lllly John Sntirh's hcst bilrerl hds gone flat
(3) It's no more than [rl sl//_r' oll nives' tule]
(Dialectally.'He's a one'can mean'He's a strange person /
(,+ ) Look at lthose tlree quuint old Corni.th -/ishernt.ut's r\to-bedr()ome.l tcr-
rarcd (Lrltilg(s) *'
(s)
Exercise Xl'I
It was [rr t.t pitul ottl nten's dreur.t' .ltsherntun's tule]
ln examples (l ) and (l) below, the bracketed NPs might be argued to be
How might these various problems bc' overcome? How will vour analvsis deal with the structurally ambiguous in respect of which nominal is modified by the italicised
ambiguity of phrases like: Adjunct PP. Draw Phrase-markers to show how this ambiguity could be represented
(limiting yourself to the structure of the bracketed N Ps. and ignoring the rest of the sen-
(6) an old mun's bicycle
tences). Which interpretation of each sentence proves problematic for the assumption
made about Adjunct PPs in the text (i.e. that {hev expand N-bar into N-bar). and whv)
rr Exertise .\l I (l) I fihe [that picture ofhim in hts push<'huirl
Discuss the syntax ol' the fbilcrwing pairs ot'eramples. pointing r:rut the (2) [The rvorkers and the managerc in the ji{tory.]just don'r get on
similarities and tliflerences betrveen then. Whar complications (if anf,)do they pose lbr
the analysis in ihe text. and what modificutions to that analysis {it'any)do they entail'} Sr.rppose we werc lo redehne a nominal Adjunct as an expression which expands a nom-
inal o1'a given type into another nonrinal o1'the same type (hence. expands N into N, or
( r) (a) Salvadcrr Dali's Iatest portrait
N-bar into N-bar, or NP inro NP). Would this help us deal with the problems posed b,
(b) thc IJtcst Srlvlrd0r Drlr ptrrtrait the italicised Adjuncr phrases in ( l.) and (2) above:r
(l)(a) nry famill''s income
tb) my fanrill incorne

(3) (a) the tilm about apitrthied last r'"eek

(b) last we.k's rp:rrthr'id tlhn

(4) (o) the presentation of the medals to thc atilietcs

(b) the medll l)resentxtion to the atirlctcs

(5 ) (a) m1 Linguistrcs lecture to the Faculty

(b) my Fucultl, l-inguistics lecture

*
Exercise .\ l'
Try and wL)rk out thc natufe o['the restrictions illustrated in the ex:rnrples
below (inventing lirrther examples o1'ycrur o*'n :ts tlcccssary ro expand the paradigm
given below):

(l)(a) thisithiit green one

(b) thisfthat one

(2) (a) the tall erne in the corner

(b) the onc in the corner

(3) (a) a yellow one

(b) *a onc

)1.t 225